On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 3:42 PM, Chip Childers <chip.child...@sungard.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > (Looking for mentor guidance here as well please!) > > On this topic, we need to come together as a community to figure out > how we want to proceed with these configuration files. It doesn't > seem like we are going to get a definitive answer on legal-discuss@a.o > without asking about a specific file from a specific source. There > HAS been a little discussion about the ability of a configuration file > to be copyright on the legal list, but it didn't go much further than > a couple of emails. > > As far as I can tell, we have some options: > > 1 - Do a file by file audit to confirm the source and if there is any > claim of copyright on those files, and then either: > 1.A - Ask the source project if they would consider granting a > different license for just that config file. > 1.B - Ask legal-discuss@a.o for specific exemptions > 1.C - Do nothing, because the file isn't something that a copyright is > claimed on (and we wouldn't claim a copyright either) > 1.D - Spec out the requirements, and have someone attempt a clean-room > implementation (I think that I could find someone if it gets to this) > 2 - Follow up on the concept of configuration files not being > protected by copyright, and ask for a ruling from legal-discuss on > that idea. > > There may be other options that I'm missing. I'm looking for opinions > and suggestions for how to move forward, since this is absolutely one > of the blocker issues for a 4.0 release. Thoughts?
1C strikes me as what we should pursue (and fall back to something else if we slapped on the wrist for it.) Aside from Fontana's comment, I don't think we are likely to see a bright line rule from a legal mind unless we catalog every file we are talking about and have someone review it, so I don't think 2 will happen. Even his was couched to say here's what I think, but I have no idea what you are specifically talking about. --David
