Policy for applying copyright notices

[Doron Fediuck]

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=Documentation/SubmittingPatches;hb=HEAD#l304

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 at ovirt.org
> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/board
> _______________________________________________
> Board mailing list
> Board at ovirt.org
> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/board
> 

-- 

/d

"Do not look into laser with remaining eye." --On a laser pointer user-manual