[legal-discuss] [Fwd: [openstack-dev] Call for a clear COPYRIGHT-HOLDERS file in all OpenStack projects (and [trove] python-troveclient_0.1.4-1_amd64.changes REJECTED)]

Monty Taylor mordred at inaugust.com
Tue Oct 22 00:16:31 UTC 2013

On 10/21/2013 09:33 PM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-10-21 at 10:23 -0400, Richard Fontana wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 08:17:19AM +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
>>> Full thread here:
>>> http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2013-October/thread.html#16980
>> cc'ing Thomas Goirand.
>> I have a feeling something is being lost in the translation from
>> Debian to OpenStack, but I'm not sure. I've read the full thread but
>> do not understand the issue.
> Me too.
>> If Debian were to insist on a complete list of all copyright holders
>> for each of its packages, it would have to shut itself down.
> Indeed.
> And I haven't heard an explanation yet as to *why* this information is
> important except "a downstream policy with no clear justification
> requires it".
>> If there
>> is a Debian packaging requirement that requires a package maintainer
>> to collect all identified copyright holders into a single file, that
>> is the package maintainer's responsibility.
> Agree with this too ... unless this information is somehow useful and
> important in a broader context.

I just posted a flamy response to openstack-dev on the original thread.
Read it if you want to read a rant.

If you don't - I will summarize here:

- We should not include the text of the CLA in our tarballs as was
suggested. There are several reasons for this, most of which that I do
not feel it's necessary, and the rest of them having to do with the fact
that I still feel that our CLA is pointless and kind of embarrasing.

- Debian has a policy of compiling a debian/copyright file which lists
the copyright that is asserted upstream. It's annoying to make it. HOWEVER

- Thomas decided that he would make a debian/copyright file that was
"more accurate" than our headers. That is incorrect behavior. We, as an
upstream, have produced a source tarball that asserts a certain set of
information regarding copyright and license. That is what
debian/copyright should contain. If it did, the FTP Masters would be fine.

- If Thomas, or anyone else, feels that the copyright information in any
of our files is incorrect, there is a very clearly defined process to
fix it. If that happens, subsequent releases will have the updated

I do not believe we need to prove to anyone anything about our Apache
licensed software.

Also, we should get rid of the CLA. Because it's pointless.


More information about the legal-discuss mailing list