On 10/19/2013 08:24 PM, Monty Taylor wrote: > > > On 10/19/2013 05:49 AM, Michael Still wrote: >> On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 7:52 PM, Clint Byrum <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I suggest that we just put Copyright headers back in the source files. >>> That will make Debian's licensecheck work fairly automatically. A single >>> file that tries to do exactly what debian/copyright would do seems a bit >>> odd. >> >> The problem here is that the copyright headers were wrong. They aren't >> religiously added to, and sometimes people have tried to "gift" code >> to the Foundation by saying the code is copyright the Foundation, >> which isn't always true. So, we can't lean on these headers for >> accurate statements of copyright. > > This is correct. As with many things that are harder for us than for > other people, we have >=1000 developers and the history thus-far has > been for people to be rather antagonistic and annoyed when someone tries > to suggest proper copyright attribution.
Though the Debian FTP masters seems to insist on having correct copyright holders in debian/copyright, and I am a bit lost after the 2 rejects I just had. > What we CAN say is that every single commit is Apache licensed. Our CLA > and enforcement of it, sad as this statement makes me, ensures that we > know that. The licensing has nothing to do with copyright holders. These are 2 different topics, please don't mix them in. :) > I'm not sure what to do re: FTP masters. Could someone expand for me > like I'm an idiot what the goal they are trying to achieve is? I _think_ > that they're trying to make sure that the code is free software and that > it is annotated somewhere that we know this to be true, yeah? Is there > an additional thing being attempted? > > Monty I believe you are right. I'll point them to this thread. Thomas _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
