Open Stack

any chance legal can chime in on the original question?

On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 12:26 AM, Steve Martinelli <s.martinelli at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Thanks for the reply Jeremy, that was my instinct too. I'll keep my -2 on
> the review in question, but I'll wait for legal to chime in before asking
> the author to abandon the patch.
>
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Jeremy Stanley <fungi at yuggoth.org> wrote:
>
>> On 2016-09-27 11:29:26 -0400 (-0400), Steve Martinelli wrote:
>> > I recently came across a patch [1] that is trying to add the Apache
>> license
>> > to an autogenerated file.
>> [...]
>> > [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/377170/1
>> [...]
>>
>> If there is a license to that file, then it's almost certainly a BSD
>> license (derived from Sphinx's quickstart.py):
>>
>>     https://github.com/sphinx-doc/sphinx/blob/master/sphinx/quickstart.py
>>
>> I'm not a lawyer, but I'm not keen on adding licenses to
>> autogenerated (e.g. non-source) files where the original authors of
>> the generator didn't design it to emit a license in its output to
>> begin with. I would argue that the copy in our cookiecutter repo, as
>> a derivative of the sphinx-quickstart output, should probably never
>> have started out with an Apache license header in the first place (I
>> wonder whether it was added to satisfy "Python scripts without a
>> declared license" checks in one of our static analyzers?).
>> --
>> Jeremy Stanley
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> legal-discuss mailing list
>> legal-discuss at lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-discuss
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/legal-discuss/attachments/20161020/54af2686/attachment.html>