Open Stack

On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 11:14 AM, Richard Fontana <rfontana at redhat.com>wrote:

> 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)
>

Good catch. In these cases I propose we put the license notice in the
global NOTICE file. I understand that is not the most conservative answer,
but I believe it is still safe and correct.


>
> > - 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?
>

Correct.

As an aside, my (weak) preference would be to not have any comment
boilerplate per file. But my understanding is that the short Apache license
notice is required.


>
> 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.
>

I agree. My understanding is that LICENSE should contain the full ASL 2.0,
and that NOTICE should contain any copyright notices deemed necessary. Two
distinct files.


>
> - RF
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/legal-discuss/attachments/20130514/9db4b093/attachment-0001.html>