On Tue, 2013-10-22 at 01:45 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 10/20/2013 09:00 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> > On 2013-10-20 22:20:25 +1300 (+1300), Robert Collins wrote:
> > [...]
> >> OTOH registering one's nominated copyright holder on the first
> >> patch to a repository is probably a sustainable overhead. And it's
> >> probably amenable to automation - a commit hook could do it locally
> >> and a check job can assert that it's done.
> > 
> > I know the Foundation's got work underway to improve the affiliate
> > map from the member database, so it might be possible to have some
> > sort of automated job which proposes changes to a copyright holders
> > list in each project by running a query with the author and date of
> > each commit looking for new affiliations. That seems like it would
> > be hacky, fragile and inaccurate, but probably still more reliable
> > than expecting thousands of contributors to keep that information up
> > to date when submitting patches?
> My request wasn't to go *THAT* far. The main problem I was facing was
> that troveclient has a few files stating that HP was the sole copyright
> holder, when it clearly was not (since I have discussed a bit with some
> the dev team in Portland, IIRC some of them are from Rackspace...).

Talk to the Trove developers and politely ask them whether the copyright
notices in their code reflects what they see as the reality.

I'm sure it would help them if you pointed out to them some significant
chunks of code from the commit history which don't appear to have been
written by a HP employee.

Simply adding a Rackspace copyright notice to a file or two which has
had a significant contribution by someone from Rackspace would be enough
to resolve your concerns completely.

i.e. if you spot in inaccuracy in the copyright headers, just make it
easy for us people to fix it and I'm sure they will.


OpenStack-dev mailing list

Reply via email to