Open Stack

On Wed, 2013-02-06 at 17:22 -0600, Monty Taylor wrote:
> 
> On 02/06/2013 10:40 AM, Sandy Walsh wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >> On Tue, 2013-02-05 at 16:12 -0600, Anne Gentle wrote:
> >>> After patching with some updates around the new year [1] [2] [3], and
> >>> learning we needed more clarity around copyright statements in source code
> >>> files, I got guidance from Lisa Miller, one of the Foundation's corporate
> >>> attorneys.
> >>>
> >>> I've created a new wiki page with this guidance at:
> >>> http://wiki.openstack.org/Documentation/Copyright
> >>>
> >>> Basically, when a new year rolls around, we don't need to update all
> >>> copyrights. When you update or add a doc file, it's fine to add the year.
> >>> Generally leave copyright statements in place, and add your own if you feel
> >>> so led. 
> > 
> > Timely, we were just having this conversation internally.
> > 
> > How do I define what a "substantial" change is in source code when
> > deciding whether to update the year or not?
> 
> Fun question. Luckily - it's a judgement call. AIUI (IANAL) the question
> is the same as if the code contributed itself is copyrightable in its
> own right. It might be related to code size - but I _think_ the easier
> way to think about it is whether or not there is an actual thought in there.

Yeah, that's pretty much my understanding.

> PS. I can easily make a script which replaces all OpenStack LLC
> references with OpenStack Foundation references ... should I?

I think it makes sense - it makes it clear that this is about the owner
of the copyright of existing work changing rather than the OpenStack
Foundation owning the copyright to new work.

Cheers,
Mark.