Open Stack

On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 4:57 PM, John Griffith
<john.griffith at solidfire.com>wrote:

>
>
>
> On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Russell Bryant <rbryant at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> On 05/01/2013 06:12 PM, Monty Taylor wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On 05/01/2013 06:05 PM, John Griffith wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Mark Washenberger
>> >> <mark.washenberger at markwash.net <mailto:mark.washenberger at markwash.net
>> >>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>     Hi folks,
>> >>
>> >>     I was looking into the ASL-2.0, and chanced across the fact that in
>> >>     Apache projects, they require that source files only have the
>> >>     License Header, and may not have any copyright notices [1]. It
>> >>     occurred to me that we waste a fair amount of time on copyrights in
>> >>     license headers, and it would be nice not to have to do that
>> anymore.
>> >
>> > I would like to hear more about the time waste there - where are we
>> > spending time? Can we do something to make that better?
>> >
>> >> I think that only applies to code submitted directly to ASF, but
>> >> regardless you wouldn't get any objections from me regarding your
>> >> proposal.  Some of the legal teams in companies involved in OpenStack
>> >> however may feel differently.
>> >
>> > And some of the developers. I would not like that.
>> >
>> > I would really like to see more folks learn about appropriate addition
>> > of copyright attribution when they work on a file, because I think it's
>> > quite important. Don't think that removing attribution from each file
>> > would prevent people from needing to do it - if we moved to a NOTICE
>> > file system, they'd need to put the notice there.
>>
>> +1
>>
>> > I also think that it's important that the attribution be per-file and
>> > not just in a NOTICE file, because the world has moved on from the days
>> > when tarballs were the primary mechanism of source code distribution. We
>> > publish this all on the web now. So this:
>> >
>> > https://github.com/openstack-dev/pbr/blob/master/pbr/packaging.py
>> >
>> > without per-file attribution, would not indicate who the license
>> > associated with this file was from.
>> >
>> >> I'm actually more troubled by seeing folks put copyright headers on
>> >> blueprints.
>> >
>> > Fascinating. I wonder if they realize that they're just asserting
>> > copyright on the text of the blueprint itself...
>>
>> It's quite irritating.  It's not clear at all what the intention is.
>> Here are some examples:
>>
>>
>> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/accurate-capacity-of-clusters-for-scheduler
>>
>>
>> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/deploy-vcenter-templates-from-vmware-nova-driver
>>
>>
>> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/esx-resource-pools-as-compute-nodes
>>
>>
>> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/multiple-clusters-managed-by-one-service
>>
>> I emailed the submitted and asked for clarification on the intent, but
>> haven't heard anything back.
>>
>
> You're much kinder than I Russell, I've just not accepted them and used
> equivalents that were written by others without the copyright.  To clarify,
> this is for BP's that we actually discussed and decided upon during summit
> sessions.
>
>
>>
>> Monty, since the ones I've noticed are from HP, perhaps this is
>> something you can help track down?
>>
>> >>     I also noticed a previous conversation [2] on this subject. I have
>> >>     not found any policy that actually requires us to include
>> copyrights
>> >>     with each source file license header.
>> >>
>> >>     Feel free to suggest that this is more trouble than it is worth,
>> but
>> >>     I'd like to propose that we discourage new contributions from
>> >>     including copyright attribution, and provide a process to work with
>> >>     the various parties we have to remove the copyrights from existing
>> >>     files. Somewhere along the line, somebody (maybe even me!) could
>> >>     write some appropriate hooks to ensure the (now identical) license
>> >>     header is present in every file for every submission.
>> >>
>> >>     Also, feel free to suggest that I'm plain wrong and am still wet
>> >>     behind the ears--I won't be terribly surprised!
>> >>
>> >>     [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#headers
>> >>     [2]
>> >>
>> http://markmail.org/message/eawha7pjiqoslm66?q=openstack+license+source+header
>> >>
>> >>     _______________________________________________
>> >>     OpenStack-TC mailing list
>> >>     OpenStack-TC at lists.openstack.org
>> >>     <mailto:OpenStack-TC at lists.openstack.org>
>> >>     http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-tc
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> OpenStack-TC mailing list
>> >> OpenStack-TC at lists.openstack.org
>> >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-tc
>> >>
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > OpenStack-TC mailing list
>> > OpenStack-TC at lists.openstack.org
>> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-tc
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> Russell Bryant
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenStack-TC mailing list
>> OpenStack-TC at lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-tc
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-tc/attachments/20130501/6cdfc0d3/attachment-0001.html>