Open Stack

On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 09:56:17AM -0700, Mark Washenberger wrote:

> Unless anyone has a stronger counterpoint to the view Richard has expressed
> here, I'd like to proceed with plans to stop allowing commits that add new
> copyright headers to new file additions in Glance (LICENSE file is an obvious
> exception).

Just a clarification, I wasn't taking any position on the issue, but
rather countering what appeared to be a strongly-held position that
seemed to rest on some legal assumptions.

There could be other reasons to favor placement of copyright notices
in each file. One, which I think markmc had expressed, is to make
clear that OpenStack is a project in which an increasingly diverse set
of individuals and organizations participate, and which does not have
a policy of requiring copyright assignment. I personally think that
itself is not a good enough reason to have developers put copyright
notices in source files, but others may reasonably disagree.

> - a hacking check that prohibits copyright headers, with exceptions made for
> all currently existing files

That would have to account for the possibility of retention or
inclusion of copyright (and license) notices covering code of
non-OpenStack origin, as in the Sphinx example discussed a while
back. Note the current answer to this FAQ item:
https://wiki.openstack.org/w/index.php?title=LegalIssuesFAQ#Incorporating_BSD.2FMIT_Licensed_Code
(though the answer given there is not the only correct answer)

> - some sort of commit hook or automated process for setting up the static
> license header in files that are missing the license notice
> - seek permission from the OpenStack Foundation to move their copyright headers
> into LICENSE (or remove them entirely)
> - seek similar permission from other original copyright holders

So you want each file to continue to contain, or fix the absence of,
an Apache License notice, but you don't want to see copyright notices
in each file preceding such license notices. Or do I misunderstand?

And you are also suggesting that the LICENSE file contain *both* a
long list of copyright notices *and* the full text of the Apache
License 2.0? I suppose there's a nonconfusing way in which you could
do that, but I wouldn't recommend it. I'd keep the Apache License 2.0
text in a file without any additional changes.

- RF