WRT sign-off, I agree since it has implications on source being contributed to the community. From kernel guide: The sign-off is a simple line at the end of the explanation for the patch, which certifies that you wrote it or otherwise have the right to pass it on as an open-source patch. See: http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=blob;f=Do... As for the copyrights mentioning, I think most people will approve copyrighting ovirt.org, rather than RedHat or IBM. This should prevent unneeded tension. Following Apache's sample, they have a license header in every source file referring on copyrights to a NOTICE file. The notice file copyrights ASF per that product. This seems like a reasonable solution, and I thin k we should have no personal name being copyrighted, as source files tend to change over the years. Personal names belong to a contributers page which may be added to the web site. See more on Apache source licensing here: http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html On Saturday 22 October 2011 19:46:09 Jan Wildeboer wrote:
Second point is identifying the source of every commit. IMHO it is good practice to have a sign-off for ALL initial commits.
Justt to make sure we have a full trail. Important for example for EAL certification. But also in case of disputes.
Jan
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
_______________________________________________ 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
-- /d "Do not look into laser with remaining eye." --On a laser pointer user-manual