Re: Policy for applying copyright notices
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 -- Jan H Wildeboer | EMEA Open Source Affairs | Office: +49 (0)89 205071-207 Red Hat GmbH | Mobile: +49 (0)174 33 23 249 Technopark II, Haus C | Fax: +49 (0)89 205071-111 Werner-von-Siemens-Ring 11 -15 | 85630 Grasbrunn | _____________________________________________________________________ Reg. Adresse: Red Hat GmbH, Technopark II, Haus C, Werner-von-Siemens-Ring 11 -15 85630 Grasbrunn, Handelsregister: Amtsgericht Muenchen HRB 153243 Geschaeftsfuehrer: Brendan Lane, Charlie Peters, Michael Cunningham, Charles Cachera _____________________________________________________________________ GPG Key: 3AC3C8AB Fingerprint: 3D1E C4E0 DD67 E16D E47A 9564 A72F 5C39 3AC3 C8AB ----- Original Message ----- From: board-bounces@ovirt.org <board-bounces@ovirt.org> To: cctrieloff@redhat.com <cctrieloff@redhat.com> Cc: board@ovirt.org <board@ovirt.org> Sent: Sat Oct 22 13:18:28 2011 Subject: Re: Policy for applying copyright notices 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 _______________________________________________ Board mailing list Board@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/board
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
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 09:51:00AM +0200, Doron Fediuck wrote:
As for the copyrights mentioning, I think most people will approve copyrighting ovirt.org, rather than RedHat or IBM. This should prevent unneeded tension.
My memory of Red Hat practice is to let individual contributors decide, and in many cases we choose to put our own name in the copyright, possibly because it's fairest and clearest. That is, it wouldn't normally be a copyright attributed to Red Hat, but to some.developer@redhat.com. It sounds as if you are suggesting we assign copyright to oVirt, which doesn't make sense to me. oVirt isn't a legal entity that can hold a copyright. - Karsten -- name: Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Sr. Community Gardener team: Red Hat Community Architecture & Leadership uri: http://communityleadershipteam.org http://TheOpenSourceWay.org gpg: AD0E0C41
On 10/24/2011 12:22 PM, Karsten Wade wrote:
It sounds as if you are suggesting we assign copyright to oVirt, which doesn't make sense to me. oVirt isn't a legal entity that can hold a copyright.
correct, it needs to be to you or the company you work for at the time of authorship of the file for new files to the project. Carl.
On Monday 24 October 2011 20:01:39 Carl Trieloff wrote:
On 10/24/2011 12:22 PM, Karsten Wade wrote:
It sounds as if you are suggesting we assign copyright to oVirt, which doesn't make sense to me. oVirt isn't a legal entity that can hold a copyright.
correct, it needs to be to you or the company you work for at the time of authorship of the file for new files to the project.
Carl. _______________________________________________ Board mailing list Board@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/board
I was following the Apache sample you gave. If ovirt.org is not a legal entity for intellectual property matters, and contributer does not belong to a company we'll get to a state which every file in the project will be copyrighted to a different person. This is too chaotic. -- /d "Do not look into laser with remaining eye." --On a laser pointer user-manual
On 10/25/2011 04:26 AM, Doron Fediuck wrote:
I was following the Apache sample you gave. If ovirt.org is not a legal entity for intellectual property matters, and contributer does not belong to a company we'll get to a state which every file in the project will be copyrighted to a different person. This is too chaotic.
That does not really matter.
* Doron Fediuck (dfediuck@redhat.com) wrote:
I was following the Apache sample you gave. If ovirt.org is not a legal entity for intellectual property matters, and contributer does not belong to a company we'll get to a state which every file in the project will be copyrighted to a different person. This is too chaotic.
It is the norm for many open source projects. Diversity is healthy. thanks, -chris
On 10/25/2011 10:14 AM, Chris Wright wrote:
* Doron Fediuck (dfediuck@redhat.com) wrote:
I was following the Apache sample you gave. If ovirt.org is not a legal entity for intellectual property matters, and contributer does not belong to a company we'll get to a state which every file in the project will be copyrighted to a different person. This is too chaotic.
It is the norm for many open source projects. Diversity is healthy.
Agreed. It's a feature, not a bug. Regards, Anthony Liguori
thanks, -chris _______________________________________________ Board mailing list Board@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/board
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 10:26:11AM +0200, Doron Fediuck wrote:
I was following the Apache sample you gave. If ovirt.org is not a legal entity for intellectual property matters, and contributer does not belong to a company we'll get to a state which every file in the project will be copyrighted to a different person. This is too chaotic.
I'm confused about what the real issue is here. I haven't honestly studied a lot of FOSS source files, just when I needed to. The copyright and license header is there in a comment field, I skip by, and start hunting for whatever I need. Even when the copyright is several lines long. Having these details in the files and in the git record is important for when we need to contact copyright holders for any reason. The most important thing AIUI is that the files are _licensed_ properly. As long as the files are ASL, we can use them in the project, regardless of the copyright holder. As someone else said in this list, how FOSS developers write their copyright notice is often a very personal thing. Some use their @work email, some their @personal email, some their @hackerspace email, and so forth. Since this is important to people and exercising that right does no real harm to the source files, it's best to leave the final decision up to people as to how they mark it. - Karsten -- name: Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Sr. Community Gardener team: Red Hat Community Architecture & Leadership uri: http://communityleadershipteam.org http://TheOpenSourceWay.org gpg: AD0E0C41
On 10/25/2011 08:21 PM, Karsten Wade wrote:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 10:26:11AM +0200, Doron Fediuck wrote:
I was following the Apache sample you gave. If ovirt.org is not a legal entity for intellectual property matters, and contributer does not belong to a company we'll get to a state which every file in the project will be copyrighted to a different person. This is too chaotic.
I'm confused about what the real issue is here.
I haven't honestly studied a lot of FOSS source files, just when I needed to. The copyright and license header is there in a comment field, I skip by, and start hunting for whatever I need. Even when the copyright is several lines long.
Having these details in the files and in the git record is important for when we need to contact copyright holders for any reason.
The most important thing AIUI is that the files are _licensed_ properly. As long as the files are ASL, we can use them in the project, regardless of the copyright holder.
I started the discussion about credits to file's author and it took a little turn, assuming no legal issue, my original request was - I rather not have the author name on the file. The main reason for that is that file changes over time and after a while it has little to do with the original version. There are many contributors to the changes and by having one name on the file we "hide" the contribution of other developers. I don't think the above contradicts the open source spirit, on the contrary. The option i saw on this thread about adding all the names of those who changed the file over time seems cumbersome to me and i think that's why we have git history for. This was discussed in the engine-core project some time ago and we decided to remove all author credits from the file. - 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
As someone else said in this list, how FOSS developers write their copyright notice is often a very personal thing. Some use their @work email, some their @personal email, some their @hackerspace email, and so forth. Since this is important to people and exercising that right does no real harm to the source files, it's best to leave the final decision up to people as to how they mark it.
- Karsten
_______________________________________________ Board mailing list Board@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/board
On 10/25/2011 03:17 PM, Livnat Peer wrote:
I started the discussion about credits to file's author and it took a little turn, assuming no legal issue, my original request was -
I rather not have the author name on the file. The main reason for that is that file changes over time and after a while it has little to do with the original version. There are many contributors to the changes and by having one name on the file we "hide" the contribution of other developers.
I don't think the above contradicts the open source spirit, on the contrary.
The option i saw on this thread about adding all the names of those who changed the file over time seems cumbersome to me and i think that's why we have git history for.
This was discussed in the engine-core project some time ago and we decided to remove all author credits from the file.
- 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.
As I said, there is no need for the authors line. Carl.
On 10/25/2011 02:17 PM, Livnat Peer wrote:
On 10/25/2011 08:21 PM, Karsten Wade wrote:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 10:26:11AM +0200, Doron Fediuck wrote:
I was following the Apache sample you gave. If ovirt.org is not a legal entity for intellectual property matters, and contributer does not belong to a company we'll get to a state which every file in the project will be copyrighted to a different person. This is too chaotic.
I'm confused about what the real issue is here.
I haven't honestly studied a lot of FOSS source files, just when I needed to. The copyright and license header is there in a comment field, I skip by, and start hunting for whatever I need. Even when the copyright is several lines long.
Having these details in the files and in the git record is important for when we need to contact copyright holders for any reason.
The most important thing AIUI is that the files are _licensed_ properly. As long as the files are ASL, we can use them in the project, regardless of the copyright holder.
I started the discussion about credits to file's author and it took a little turn, assuming no legal issue, my original request was -
I rather not have the author name on the file. The main reason for that is that file changes over time and after a while it has little to do with the original version. There are many contributors to the changes and by having one name on the file we "hide" the contribution of other developers.
I think what you're hearing is that copyright text tends to be both something that individuals have strong personal feelings about and something that corporate legal departments have strong feelings about. It's probably best to avoid specific policies other than requiring a valid copyright statement and a valid statement of licensing. Regards, Anthony Liguori
participants (7)
-
Anthony Liguori -
Carl Trieloff -
Chris Wright -
Doron Fediuck -
Jan Wildeboer -
Karsten Wade -
Livnat Peer