Policy for applying copyright notices
I would like to add to the site some text around applying the copyright statement per the license text as per http://www.ovirt.org/about/licensing/ In the piece at the top of the license, there is a section "Copyright [yyyy] [name of copyright owner]" Based on some discussion reading the source to be opened for the workshop, I believe we should use the following general rule for the projects. The author of the file applies his organization or themselves as the copyright owner, and then any additions / modifications can be determined from the GIT history. Maybe better I just create a guide for any incubating project, I'll post it for comment. Carl.
On 10/18/2011 12:35 PM, Carl Trieloff wrote:
I would like to add to the site some text around applying the copyright statement per the license text as per http://www.ovirt.org/about/licensing/
In the piece at the top of the license, there is a section
"Copyright [yyyy] [name of copyright owner]"
This will remain a recommendation, right? It would be difficult for us to get approval to use something other than the IBM corporate standard copyright notice (which does change every couple years). It seems (C) comes in and out of style over time :-) Regards, Anthony Liguori
Based on some discussion reading the source to be opened for the workshop, I believe we should use the following general rule for the projects. The author of the file applies his organization or themselves as the copyright owner, and then any additions / modifications can be determined from the GIT history.
Maybe better I just create a guide for any incubating project, I'll post it for comment.
Carl. _______________________________________________ Board mailing list Board@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/board
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 01:41:04PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 10/18/2011 12:35 PM, Carl Trieloff wrote:
I would like to add to the site some text around applying the copyright statement per the license text as per http://www.ovirt.org/about/licensing/
In the piece at the top of the license, there is a section
"Copyright [yyyy] [name of copyright owner]"
This will remain a recommendation, right? It would be difficult for us to get approval to use something other than the IBM corporate standard copyright notice (which does change every couple years). It seems (C) comes in and out of style over time :-)
That line is actually from the appendix of the Apache License 2.0, which gives a recommended copyright notice. I'm sympathetic to the view that precise formal details of copyright notices should not be mandated. At Red Hat, I think the "(C)" may have been historically recommended, but I have non-actively promoted non-use of it on principles of minimalism :-). I think, however, that Carl was suggesting a rule that *some* suitable form of copyright notice be placed by the author of an original file, not mandating what the form would be. - Richard
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
Based on some discussion reading the source to be opened for the workshop, I believe we should use the following general rule for the projects. The author of the file applies his organization or themselves as the copyright owner, and then any additions / modifications can be determined from the GIT history.
Maybe better I just create a guide for any incubating project, I'll post it for comment.
Carl. _______________________________________________ Board mailing list Board@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/board
_______________________________________________ Board mailing list Board@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/board
On 10/18/2011 05:31 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 01:41:04PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 10/18/2011 12:35 PM, Carl Trieloff wrote:
I would like to add to the site some text around applying the copyright statement per the license text as per http://www.ovirt.org/about/licensing/
In the piece at the top of the license, there is a section
"Copyright [yyyy] [name of copyright owner]"
This will remain a recommendation, right? It would be difficult for us to get approval to use something other than the IBM corporate standard copyright notice (which does change every couple years). It seems (C) comes in and out of style over time :-) That line is actually from the appendix of the Apache License 2.0, which gives a recommended copyright notice.
I'm sympathetic to the view that precise formal details of copyright notices should not be mandated. At Red Hat, I think the "(C)" may have been historically recommended, but I have non-actively promoted non-use of it on principles of minimalism :-).
I think, however, that Carl was suggesting a rule that *some* suitable form of copyright notice be placed by the author of an original file, not mandating what the form would be.
correct. Carl.
On 10/19/2011 02:12 AM, Carl Trieloff wrote:
On 10/18/2011 05:31 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 01:41:04PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 10/18/2011 12:35 PM, Carl Trieloff wrote:
I would like to add to the site some text around applying the copyright statement per the license text as per http://www.ovirt.org/about/licensing/
In the piece at the top of the license, there is a section
"Copyright [yyyy] [name of copyright owner]"
This will remain a recommendation, right? It would be difficult for us to get approval to use something other than the IBM corporate standard copyright notice (which does change every couple years). It seems (C) comes in and out of style over time :-) That line is actually from the appendix of the Apache License 2.0, which gives a recommended copyright notice.
I'm sympathetic to the view that precise formal details of copyright notices should not be mandated. At Red Hat, I think the "(C)" may have been historically recommended, but I have non-actively promoted non-use of it on principles of minimalism :-).
I think, however, that Carl was suggesting a rule that *some* suitable form of copyright notice be placed by the author of an original file, not mandating what the form would be.
correct.
Carl.
I personally rather dropping the [name of copyright owner] I believe that's why we have history in the source control. There is one person adding the file and other X (X likely > 1) people changing it, I see no reason crediting the one who added the file. We had a discussion on this in the engine-core project some time ago and we decided to remove all credits to file creators. If not accepted as a general rule for all oVirt projects I would like to suggest that this can be decided/changed on a project level. Livnat
On 10/22/2011 01:18 PM, Livnat Peer wrote:
I personally rather dropping the [name of copyright owner] I believe that's why we have history in the source control.
That is also fine. Note that if a file is brought to the project it is considered bad form to strip the copyright notice, so over time we will get a collection of files with notices and without over time if code is re-used from other OSS projects. Carl.
On 10/23/2011 08:37 AM, Carl Trieloff wrote:
On 10/22/2011 01:18 PM, Livnat Peer wrote:
I personally rather dropping the [name of copyright owner] I believe that's why we have history in the source control.
That is also fine.
Note that if a file is brought to the project it is considered bad form to strip the copyright notice, so over time we will get a collection of files with notices and without over time if code is re-used from other OSS projects.
Are we talking about dropping the copyright line or an authors line? For instance: * Copyright International Business Machines, 2011 * Authors: * Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com> Having a person's name in the file is useful in terms of asking questions. Yes, git exists but not everything deals with git trees. If we're talking about stripping the Copyright line, that's not going to be allowed some corporate legal departments. People copy files between projects so preserving the copyright notice is pretty important. Regards, Anthony Liguori
Carl. _______________________________________________ Board mailing list Board@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/board
On 10/23/2011 07:31 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 10/23/2011 08:37 AM, Carl Trieloff wrote:
On 10/22/2011 01:18 PM, Livnat Peer wrote:
I personally rather dropping the [name of copyright owner] I believe that's why we have history in the source control.
That is also fine.
Note that if a file is brought to the project it is considered bad form to strip the copyright notice, so over time we will get a collection of files with notices and without over time if code is re-used from other OSS projects.
Are we talking about dropping the copyright line or an authors line? For instance:
* Copyright International Business Machines, 2011 * Authors: * Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>
Having a person's name in the file is useful in terms of asking questions. Yes, git exists but not everything deals with git trees.
If we're talking about stripping the Copyright line, that's not going to be allowed some corporate legal departments. People copy files between projects so preserving the copyright notice is pretty important.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
I was referring to the author. One person is adding the file and many others are changing it. Many times (after a while) the file has little to do with the original file that was added. So for questions about the file you usually need to deal with the info from the source control. Livnat
Carl. _______________________________________________ Board mailing list Board@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/board
On Sunday 23 October 2011 20:01:33 Livnat Peer wrote:
On 10/23/2011 07:31 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 10/23/2011 08:37 AM, Carl Trieloff wrote:
On 10/22/2011 01:18 PM, Livnat Peer wrote:
I personally rather dropping the [name of copyright owner] I believe that's why we have history in the source control.
That is also fine.
Note that if a file is brought to the project it is considered bad form to strip the copyright notice, so over time we will get a collection of files with notices and without over time if code is re-used from other OSS projects.
Are we talking about dropping the copyright line or an authors line? For instance:
* Copyright International Business Machines, 2011 * Authors: * Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>
Having a person's name in the file is useful in terms of asking questions. Yes, git exists but not everything deals with git trees.
If we're talking about stripping the Copyright line, that's not going to be allowed some corporate legal departments. People copy files between projects so preserving the copyright notice is pretty important.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
I was referring to the author. One person is adding the file and many others are changing it. Many times (after a while) the file has little to do with the original file that was added.
So for questions about the file you usually need to deal with the info from the source control.
Livnat
WRT to omitting the person name (from past experience...), After a year or so people change positions / work places, and this becomes simply an old memory, with the relevant person not longer available to answer questions, so this is missing the point. -- /d "The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind" --Bob Dylan, Blowin' in the Wind (1963)
On 10/23/2011 01:23 PM, Doron Fediuck wrote:
On Sunday 23 October 2011 20:01:33 Livnat Peer wrote:
On 10/23/2011 07:31 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 10/23/2011 08:37 AM, Carl Trieloff wrote:
On 10/22/2011 01:18 PM, Livnat Peer wrote:
I personally rather dropping the [name of copyright owner] I believe that's why we have history in the source control.
That is also fine.
Note that if a file is brought to the project it is considered bad form to strip the copyright notice, so over time we will get a collection of files with notices and without over time if code is re-used from other OSS projects.
Are we talking about dropping the copyright line or an authors line? For instance:
* Copyright International Business Machines, 2011 * Authors: * Anthony Liguori<aliguori@us.ibm.com>
Having a person's name in the file is useful in terms of asking questions. Yes, git exists but not everything deals with git trees.
If we're talking about stripping the Copyright line, that's not going to be allowed some corporate legal departments. People copy files between projects so preserving the copyright notice is pretty important.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
I was referring to the author. One person is adding the file and many others are changing it. Many times (after a while) the file has little to do with the original file that was added.
So for questions about the file you usually need to deal with the info from the source control.
Livnat
WRT to omitting the person name (from past experience...), After a year or so people change positions / work places, and this becomes simply an old memory, with the relevant person not longer available to answer questions, so this is missing the point.
As long as we're just talking about the Authors section, I guess it doesn't matter that much. It really only matters for corporate contributors. Regards, Anthony Liguori
* Doron Fediuck (dfediuck@redhat.com) wrote:
On Sunday 23 October 2011 20:01:33 Livnat Peer wrote:
On 10/23/2011 07:31 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Having a person's name in the file is useful in terms of asking questions. Yes, git exists but not everything deals with git trees.
If we're talking about stripping the Copyright line, that's not going to be allowed some corporate legal departments. People copy files between projects so preserving the copyright notice is pretty important.
I was referring to the author. One person is adding the file and many others are changing it. Many times (after a while) the file has little to do with the original file that was added.
So for questions about the file you usually need to deal with the info from the source control.
WRT to omitting the person name (from past experience...), After a year or so people change positions / work places, and this becomes simply an old memory, with the relevant person not longer available to answer questions, so this is missing the point.
Not only do different employers have different Copyright requirements as Anthony noted, but developers have different attitudes about the attribution they prefer in their source files. So, even if eventually stale, it's a basic courtesy to allow author to do as they see fit ;) thanks, -chris
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 08:23:05PM +0200, Doron Fediuck wrote:
WRT to omitting the person name (from past experience...), After a year or so people change positions / work places, and this becomes simply an old memory, with the relevant person not longer available to answer questions, so this is missing the point.
Actually, what you describe is exactly why it works well in open source projects. You often _can_ reach people after they are no longer involved, and often they'll be glad to answer questions, etc. Because it's not secret-employer-code, people are much more willing and able to be a brief mentor or answer some questions. - Karsten -- name: Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Sr. Community Gardener team: Red Hat Community Architecture & Leadership uri: http://communityleadershipteam.org http://TheOpenSourceWay.org gpg: AD0E0C41
On Monday 24 October 2011 21:25:48 Karsten Wade wrote:
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 08:23:05PM +0200, Doron Fediuck wrote:
WRT to omitting the person name (from past experience...), After a year or so people change positions / work places, and this becomes simply an old memory, with the relevant person not longer available to answer questions, so this is missing the point.
Actually, what you describe is exactly why it works well in open source projects. You often _can_ reach people after they are no longer involved, and often they'll be glad to answer questions, etc. Because it's not secret-employer-code, people are much more willing and able to be a brief mentor or answer some questions.
- Karsten
Unfortunately my past experience is different. Especially when author is someone@some.corp and does not have that email anymore. -- /d "Forty-two," said Deep Thought, with infinite majesty and calm. --Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
participants (7)
-
Anthony Liguori -
Carl Trieloff -
Chris Wright -
Doron Fediuck -
Karsten Wade -
Livnat Peer -
Richard Fontana