Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Proposal: copyright-holders file in each project, or copyright holding forced to the OpenStack Foundation

2016-05-18 Thread David Medberry 
+1 james bottomley

On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 11:55 PM, James Bottomley <
james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 2016-01-15 at 15:38 +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 08:48:21PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> > > This isn't the first time I'm calling for it. Let's hope this time,
> > > I'll
> > > be heard.
> > >
> > > Randomly, contributors put their company names into source code.
> > > When
> > > they do, then effectively, this tells that a given source file
> > > copyright
> > > holder is whatever is claimed, even though someone from another
> > > company
> > > may have patched it.
> > >
> > > As a result, we have a huge mess. It's impossible for me, as a
> > > package
> > > maintainer, to accurately set the copyright holder names in the
> > > debian/copyright file, which is a required by the Debian FTP
> > > masters.
> >
> > I don't think OpenStack is in a different situation to the vast
> > majority of open source projects I've worked with or seen. Except
> > for those projects requiring copyright assignment to a single
> > entity, it is normal for source files to contain an unreliable
> > random splattering of Copyright notices. This hasn't seemed to
> > create a blocking problem for their maintenance in Debian. Loooking
> > at the debian/copyright files I see most of them have just done a
> > grep for the 'Copyright' statements & included as is - IOW just
> > ignored the fact that this is essentially worthless info and included
> > it regardless.
> >
> > > I see 2 ways forward:
> > > 1/ Require everyone to give-up copyright holding, and give it to
> > > the
> > > OpenStack Foundation.
> > > 2/ Maintain a copyright-holder file in each project.
> >
> > 3/ Do nothing, just populate debian/copyright with the random
> >set of 'Copyright' lines that happen to be the source files,
> >as appears to be common practice across many debian packages
> >
> >eg the kernel package
> >
> > http://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs/main/l/linux/lin
> > ux_3.16.7-ckt11-1+deb8u3_copyright
> >
> > "Copyright: 1991-2012 Linus Torvalds and many others"
> >
> >if its good enough for the Debian kernel package, it should be
> >good enough for openstack packages too IMHO.
>
> This is what I'd vote for.  It seems to be enough to satisfy the debian
> policy on copyrights and it means nothing has to change in Openstack.
>
> James
>
>
> __
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Proposal: copyright-holders file in each project, or copyright holding forced to the OpenStack Foundation

2016-01-17 Thread James Bottomley 
On Fri, 2016-01-15 at 20:48 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> This isn't the first time I'm calling for it. Let's hope this time, 
> I'll be heard.
> 
> Randomly, contributors put their company names into source code. When
> they do, then effectively, this tells that a given source file 
> copyright holder is whatever is claimed, even though someone from 
> another company may have patched it.
> 
> As a result, we have a huge mess. It's impossible for me, as a 
> package maintainer, to accurately set the copyright holder names in 
> the debian/copyright file, which is a required by the Debian FTP
> masters.

The debian copyright policy merely requires the debian/copyright file
to aggregate the stated copyright of the project ... it doesn't require
the project to keep complete and accurate records or Debian to
manufacture them:

https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-docs.html#s-copyrightfile

Traditionally the git repository is the complete record of who changed
the file.  However, legally, not every change might be considered
copyrightable so most open source projects leave it up to authors
whether they want to add a copyright annotation or not.

Just simply aggregating what's stated in the files is enough to satisfy
the debian policy.

> I see 2 ways forward:
> 1/ Require every one to give-up copyright holding, and give it to the
> OpenStack Foundation.

Good grief, I thought we'd got beyond the days of copyright assignment
... it might simplify your administration, but it would greatly
increase the burden of someone to maintain the files of the necessary
assignments.

> 2/ Maintain a copyright-holder file in each project.

How is that different from letting people decide if they want to add
their copyrights to the header of the file ... in other words, how will
it make the situation different from today?

> The later is needed if we want to do things correctly. Leaving the
> possibility for everyone to just write (c) MyCompany LLC randomly in 
> the source code doesn't cut it. Expecting that a package maintainer
> should double-guess copyright holding just by reading the email 
> addresses of "git log" output doesn't work either.
> 
> Please remember that a copyright holder has nothing to do with the
> license, neither with the author of some code. So please do *not*
> take
> over this thread, and discuss authorship or licensing.
> 
> Whatever we choose, I think we should ban having copyright holding
> text
> within our source code. While licensing is a good idea, as it is
> accurate, the copyright holding information isn't and it's just
> missleading.
> 
> If I was the only person to choose, I'd say let's go for 1/, but
> probably managers of every company wont agree.
> 
> Some thoughts anyone?

I don't think there's anything broken here, so I'd vote for not trying
to fix it ...

James



__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Proposal: copyright-holders file in each project, or copyright holding forced to the OpenStack Foundation

2016-01-17 Thread James Bottomley 
On Fri, 2016-01-15 at 15:38 +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 08:48:21PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> > This isn't the first time I'm calling for it. Let's hope this time,
> > I'll
> > be heard.
> > 
> > Randomly, contributors put their company names into source code.
> > When
> > they do, then effectively, this tells that a given source file
> > copyright
> > holder is whatever is claimed, even though someone from another
> > company
> > may have patched it.
> > 
> > As a result, we have a huge mess. It's impossible for me, as a
> > package
> > maintainer, to accurately set the copyright holder names in the
> > debian/copyright file, which is a required by the Debian FTP
> > masters.
> 
> I don't think OpenStack is in a different situation to the vast
> majority of open source projects I've worked with or seen. Except
> for those projects requiring copyright assignment to a single
> entity, it is normal for source files to contain an unreliable
> random splattering of Copyright notices. This hasn't seemed to
> create a blocking problem for their maintenance in Debian. Loooking
> at the debian/copyright files I see most of them have just done a
> grep for the 'Copyright' statements & included as is - IOW just
> ignored the fact that this is essentially worthless info and included
> it regardless.
> 
> > I see 2 ways forward:
> > 1/ Require everyone to give-up copyright holding, and give it to
> > the
> > OpenStack Foundation.
> > 2/ Maintain a copyright-holder file in each project.
> 
> 3/ Do nothing, just populate debian/copyright with the random
>set of 'Copyright' lines that happen to be the source files,
>as appears to be common practice across many debian packages
> 
>eg the kernel package
> 
> http://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs/main/l/linux/lin
> ux_3.16.7-ckt11-1+deb8u3_copyright
> 
> "Copyright: 1991-2012 Linus Torvalds and many others"
> 
>if its good enough for the Debian kernel package, it should be
>good enough for openstack packages too IMHO.

This is what I'd vote for.  It seems to be enough to satisfy the debian
policy on copyrights and it means nothing has to change in Openstack.

James


__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Proposal: copyright-holders file in each project, or copyright holding forced to the OpenStack Foundation

2016-01-17 Thread Clint Byrum 
Excerpts from Thomas Goirand's message of 2016-01-16 22:36:23 -0800:
> On 01/16/2016 10:16 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> > On 2016-01-16 12:14:20 +0800 (+0800), Thomas Goirand wrote:
> > [...]
> >> I've just asked this very point with the same example to the FTP
> >> masters. Let's see what they say...
> > 
> > Please point them to the archive for this thread. Specifically it
> > would be helpful for them to give _you_ feedback on your attempts to
> > switch or remove a large free software project's declared
> > contributor copyrights for your own packaging convenience. I
> > particularly find it galling that you suggest we should switch from
> > contributor-held copyright to a copyright assignment model because
> > it would make your life as a package maintainer easier.
> 
> It isn't at all how I wrote things.
> 
> What I wrote is that I feel like the currently situation makes it very
> blurry for one to tell who is the copyright holder(s). I'm seeking a way
> to fix this. It looks like its another failed attempt, as some
> (including you) are opposed to do any of the things I proposed, and
> nobody has a better solution (and I don't see how writing to the legal
> list will change anything). I suppose I can only give-up.

Sorry that this process has you down. I know that I personally have gone
through the exercise of attempting to document the copyright holders
of some very large projects, one of those being MySQL. It is futile and
pointless as long as the original license grant has been verified, and no
evidence of a relicense by all copyright holders is known to exist. Do
you reach out to all of these copyright holders and ask for any such
evidence? No. That would be a massive burden and nobody actually cares. So
why do we have to even know who these people or organizations are?

The point of doing this for Debian is to make sure Debian users can use
the software in the archive confident in their freedoms. That some FTP
masters are sticklers that each file have at least one copyright holder
known is a quirk of Debian, and I think should be addressed directly
in Debian, _not_ here, where we know we're producing and distributing
free software.

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Proposal: copyright-holders file in each project, or copyright holding forced to the OpenStack Foundation

2016-01-17 Thread Jeremy Stanley 
On 2016-01-17 14:36:23 +0800 (+0800), Thomas Goirand wrote:
[...]
> What I wrote is that I feel like the currently situation makes it
> very blurry for one to tell who is the copyright holder(s). I'm
> seeking a way to fix this.

I fail to see what's blurry about it. The contributors who feel
compelled to acknowledge their copyright or that of their employer
do so by adding or updating a comment at the top of the file to
which they're contributing. This is typical of many (I hesitate to
say "most" though I suspect it may be) projects, and is a
long-standing part of our culture in the greater free software
community.

I am definitely (and happily) not a lawyer, but the instructions at
http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html#apply indicate that
at least one copyright notice is expected when applying the Apache
License, Version 2.0. There is also nothing out of the ordinary with
files having multiple copyright holders declared (because they made
significant copyrightable contributions to the same file at
different points in time), nor with different files in a project
having different copyright holders. Further, section 4c of the
license indicates that copyright and attribution notices must be
redistributed even in derivative works, and it seems pretty obvious
that any patch updating a file results in a derivative work of the
prior version of that same file, so retaining our existing copyright
notices is necessary (in my non-lawyer opinion).

> It looks like its another failed attempt, as some (including you)
> are opposed to do any of the things I proposed, and nobody has a
> better solution (and I don't see how writing to the legal list
> will change anything). I suppose I can only give-up.

I am (and probably others are as well) unlikely to be convinced
without prominent lawyers who possess expertise in free software and
copyright law weighing in on efficacy and viability of your proposed
changes. Also suggestions which have any bearing on the
responsibilities of the OpenStack Foundation (such as switching to a
copyright assignment model) would need input from their legal
counsel, and possibly even a majority vote of the foundation
membership to actually enact.
-- 
Jeremy Stanley

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Proposal: copyright-holders file in each project, or copyright holding forced to the OpenStack Foundation

2016-01-16 Thread Jeremy Stanley 
On 2016-01-16 12:12:00 +0800 (+0800), Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 01/15/2016 11:26 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> > On 2016-01-15 23:09:34 +0800 (+0800), Thomas Goirand wrote:
> >> On 01/15/2016 09:57 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> > [...]
> >>> resulting in the summary at
> >>> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/LegalIssuesFAQ#Copyright_Headers for
> >>> those who choose to learn from history rather than repeating it.
> >>
> >> Well, this wiki entry doesn't even have a single line about copyright
> >> holding, it only tells about licensing and how/when to put a license
> >> header in source code. Or did I miss it when reading too fast?
> > 
> > What? That entire section I linked is _only_ about copyright
> > headers.
> 
> holder != header

Copyright holders are declared in copyright headers. The comments in
files like...

# Copyright 2012 Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P.
# Copyright 2013-2014 OpenStack Foundation
# Copyright 2012, 2014 Jeremy Stanley

...are copyright headers declaring the holders of copyright on at
least _some_ parts of the file (it is not guaranteed to be complete,
it is only those who have gone to the trouble to log substantial
changes). What information on "copyright holding" were you looking
for? If you're seeking legal advice, this is not at all the place to
do that.
-- 
Jeremy Stanley

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Proposal: copyright-holders file in each project, or copyright holding forced to the OpenStack Foundation

2016-01-16 Thread Jeremy Stanley 
On 2016-01-16 11:59:44 +0800 (+0800), Thomas Goirand wrote:
[...]
> Though we could ask copyright holders to declare giving it to the
> foundation.
[...]

Please let's move this to the legal-discuss ML. Even if I thought
copyright assignment was a good idea (which I don't), I lack
sufficient experience in copyright law to know whether it's possible
at all under the current foundation bylaws and I doubt you know
either.
-- 
Jeremy Stanley

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Proposal: copyright-holders file in each project, or copyright holding forced to the OpenStack Foundation

2016-01-16 Thread Jeremy Stanley 
On 2016-01-16 12:14:20 +0800 (+0800), Thomas Goirand wrote:
[...]
> I've just asked this very point with the same example to the FTP
> masters. Let's see what they say...

Please point them to the archive for this thread. Specifically it
would be helpful for them to give _you_ feedback on your attempts to
switch or remove a large free software project's declared
contributor copyrights for your own packaging convenience. I
particularly find it galling that you suggest we should switch from
contributor-held copyright to a copyright assignment model because
it would make your life as a package maintainer easier. If there was
ever a good reason for copyright assignment in free software, that's
not it.
-- 
Jeremy Stanley

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Proposal: copyright-holders file in each project, or copyright holding forced to the OpenStack Foundation

2016-01-16 Thread Thomas Goirand 
On 01/16/2016 10:16 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> On 2016-01-16 12:14:20 +0800 (+0800), Thomas Goirand wrote:
> [...]
>> I've just asked this very point with the same example to the FTP
>> masters. Let's see what they say...
> 
> Please point them to the archive for this thread. Specifically it
> would be helpful for them to give _you_ feedback on your attempts to
> switch or remove a large free software project's declared
> contributor copyrights for your own packaging convenience. I
> particularly find it galling that you suggest we should switch from
> contributor-held copyright to a copyright assignment model because
> it would make your life as a package maintainer easier.

It isn't at all how I wrote things.

What I wrote is that I feel like the currently situation makes it very
blurry for one to tell who is the copyright holder(s). I'm seeking a way
to fix this. It looks like its another failed attempt, as some
(including you) are opposed to do any of the things I proposed, and
nobody has a better solution (and I don't see how writing to the legal
list will change anything). I suppose I can only give-up.

Cheers,

Thomas Goirand (zigo)


__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Proposal: copyright-holders file in each project, or copyright holding forced to the OpenStack Foundation

2016-01-15 Thread Chris Dent 

On Fri, 15 Jan 2016, Thomas Goirand wrote:


Whatever we choose, I think we should ban having copyright holding text
within our source code. While licensing is a good idea, as it is
accurate, the copyright holding information isn't and it's just missleading.


I think we should not add new copyright notifications in files.

I'd also be happy to see all the existing ones removed, but that may
be a bigger problem.


If I was the only person to choose, I'd say let's go for 1/, but
probably managers of every company wont agree.


I think option one is correct.

--
Chris Dent   (�s°□°)�s�喋擤ォ�http://anticdent.org/
freenode: cdent tw: @anticdent__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Proposal: copyright-holders file in each project, or copyright holding forced to the OpenStack Foundation

2016-01-15 Thread Jan Klare 
Hi Thomas,

good thoughts for a very important topic. I am currently refactoring a lot of 
code inside of the openstack-chef cookbooks and constantly have to ask myself, 
if i now have to add any copyright thingy to any file or am even allowed to 
delete the original copyright in a file after changing 100% of the code in it. 
I do not want to remove any copyright here, but i think this distribution of 
copyrights is very annoying and leads to the issues you mentioned below. In my 
opinion (although i agree, that 1) would be the best option but might be 
impossible since you would have to ask all companies, or find the persons 
responsible or allowed to remove these copyrights), we should move all the 
copyrights from all files to one central file per repo. The big question for me 
is, if we are allowed to do so and finally remove the copyrights from the files 
they are currently in.

Cheers,
Jan

> On 15 Jan 2016, at 13:48, Thomas Goirand  wrote:
> 
> This isn't the first time I'm calling for it. Let's hope this time, I'll
> be heard.
> 
> Randomly, contributors put their company names into source code. When
> they do, then effectively, this tells that a given source file copyright
> holder is whatever is claimed, even though someone from another company
> may have patched it.
> 
> As a result, we have a huge mess. It's impossible for me, as a package
> maintainer, to accurately set the copyright holder names in the
> debian/copyright file, which is a required by the Debian FTP masters.
> 
> I see 2 ways forward:
> 1/ Require everyone to give-up copyright holding, and give it to the
> OpenStack Foundation.
> 2/ Maintain a copyright-holder file in each project.
> 
> The later is needed if we want to do things correctly. Leaving the
> possibility for everyone to just write (c) MyCompany LLC randomly in the
> source code doesn't cut it. Expecting that a package maintainer should
> double-guess copyright holding just by reading the email addresses of
> "git log" output doesn't work either.
> 
> Please remember that a copyright holder has nothing to do with the
> license, neither with the author of some code. So please do *not* take
> over this thread, and discuss authorship or licensing.
> 
> Whatever we choose, I think we should ban having copyright holding text
> within our source code. While licensing is a good idea, as it is
> accurate, the copyright holding information isn't and it's just missleading.
> 
> If I was the only person to choose, I'd say let's go for 1/, but
> probably managers of every company wont agree.
> 
> Some thoughts anyone?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Thomas Goirand (zigo)
> 
> __
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

[openstack-dev] [all] Proposal: copyright-holders file in each project, or copyright holding forced to the OpenStack Foundation

2016-01-15 Thread Thomas Goirand 
This isn't the first time I'm calling for it. Let's hope this time, I'll
be heard.

Randomly, contributors put their company names into source code. When
they do, then effectively, this tells that a given source file copyright
holder is whatever is claimed, even though someone from another company
may have patched it.

As a result, we have a huge mess. It's impossible for me, as a package
maintainer, to accurately set the copyright holder names in the
debian/copyright file, which is a required by the Debian FTP masters.

I see 2 ways forward:
1/ Require everyone to give-up copyright holding, and give it to the
OpenStack Foundation.
2/ Maintain a copyright-holder file in each project.

The later is needed if we want to do things correctly. Leaving the
possibility for everyone to just write (c) MyCompany LLC randomly in the
source code doesn't cut it. Expecting that a package maintainer should
double-guess copyright holding just by reading the email addresses of
"git log" output doesn't work either.

Please remember that a copyright holder has nothing to do with the
license, neither with the author of some code. So please do *not* take
over this thread, and discuss authorship or licensing.

Whatever we choose, I think we should ban having copyright holding text
within our source code. While licensing is a good idea, as it is
accurate, the copyright holding information isn't and it's just missleading.

If I was the only person to choose, I'd say let's go for 1/, but
probably managers of every company wont agree.

Some thoughts anyone?

Cheers,

Thomas Goirand (zigo)

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Proposal: copyright-holders file in each project, or copyright holding forced to the OpenStack Foundation

2016-01-15 Thread Jeremy Stanley 
On 2016-01-15 23:09:34 +0800 (+0800), Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 01/15/2016 09:57 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
[...]
> > resulting in the summary at
> > https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/LegalIssuesFAQ#Copyright_Headers for
> > those who choose to learn from history rather than repeating it.
> 
> Well, this wiki entry doesn't even have a single line about copyright
> holding, it only tells about licensing and how/when to put a license
> header in source code. Or did I miss it when reading too fast?

What? That entire section I linked is _only_ about copyright
headers.
-- 
Jeremy Stanley

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Proposal: copyright-holders file in each project, or copyright holding forced to the OpenStack Foundation

2016-01-15 Thread Jeremy Stanley 
On 2016-01-15 07:31:09 -0600 (-0600), Dolph Mathews wrote:
> This is a topic for legal-discuss, not -dev.
> 
>   http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-discuss

And not only that, but we've discussed it to death in years gone by
(my how short some memories are), resulting in the summary at
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/LegalIssuesFAQ#Copyright_Headers for
those who choose to learn from history rather than repeating it.
-- 
Jeremy Stanley

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Proposal: copyright-holders file in each project, or copyright holding forced to the OpenStack Foundation

2016-01-15 Thread Thomas Goirand 
On 01/15/2016 09:57 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> On 2016-01-15 07:31:09 -0600 (-0600), Dolph Mathews wrote:
>> This is a topic for legal-discuss, not -dev.
>>
>>   http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-discuss
> 
> And not only that

It is important that everyone writing code reads the thread, otherwise
we will see no progress.

> but we've discussed it to death in years gone by
> (my how short some memories are)

Probably, but with no progress. I've just had an issue with wrong
copyright holders with oslo.privsep, which is very new. So,
unfortunately, I have to bring the topic back on the table. :(

> resulting in the summary at
> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/LegalIssuesFAQ#Copyright_Headers for
> those who choose to learn from history rather than repeating it.

Well, this wiki entry doesn't even have a single line about copyright
holding, it only tells about licensing and how/when to put a license
header in source code. Or did I miss it when reading too fast?

Cheers,

Thomas Goirand (zigo)


__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Proposal: copyright-holders file in each project, or copyright holding forced to the OpenStack Foundation

2016-01-15 Thread Jan Klare 

> On 15 Jan 2016, at 14:57, Jeremy Stanley  wrote:
> 
> On 2016-01-15 07:31:09 -0600 (-0600), Dolph Mathews wrote:
>> This is a topic for legal-discuss, not -dev.
>> 
>>  http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-discuss
> 
> And not only that, but we've discussed it to death in years gone by
> (my how short some memories are), resulting in the summary at
> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/LegalIssuesFAQ#Copyright_Headers for
> those who choose to learn from history rather than repeating it.
> -- 
> Jeremy Stanley

You are completely right, but maybe this mail was also pointing to the current 
situation we are in (which is ugly) and the sentence:

"
We do not yet have guidance for when to add or remove a copyright header in 
source files.
“

from the wiki you mentioned above. Nevertheless, we should move this discussion 
the another mailing list like stated before and try to fix the “not yet” or at 
least move a bit forward.

> 
> __
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Proposal: copyright-holders file in each project, or copyright holding forced to the OpenStack Foundation

2016-01-15 Thread Dolph Mathews 
This is a topic for legal-discuss, not -dev.

  http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-discuss

On Friday, January 15, 2016, Thomas Goirand  wrote:

> This isn't the first time I'm calling for it. Let's hope this time, I'll
> be heard.
>
> Randomly, contributors put their company names into source code. When
> they do, then effectively, this tells that a given source file copyright
> holder is whatever is claimed, even though someone from another company
> may have patched it.
>
> As a result, we have a huge mess. It's impossible for me, as a package
> maintainer, to accurately set the copyright holder names in the
> debian/copyright file, which is a required by the Debian FTP masters.
>
> I see 2 ways forward:
> 1/ Require everyone to give-up copyright holding, and give it to the
> OpenStack Foundation.
> 2/ Maintain a copyright-holder file in each project.
>
> The later is needed if we want to do things correctly. Leaving the
> possibility for everyone to just write (c) MyCompany LLC randomly in the
> source code doesn't cut it. Expecting that a package maintainer should
> double-guess copyright holding just by reading the email addresses of
> "git log" output doesn't work either.
>
> Please remember that a copyright holder has nothing to do with the
> license, neither with the author of some code. So please do *not* take
> over this thread, and discuss authorship or licensing.
>
> Whatever we choose, I think we should ban having copyright holding text
> within our source code. While licensing is a good idea, as it is
> accurate, the copyright holding information isn't and it's just
> missleading.
>
> If I was the only person to choose, I'd say let's go for 1/, but
> probably managers of every company wont agree.
>
> Some thoughts anyone?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Thomas Goirand (zigo)
>
> __
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Proposal: copyright-holders file in each project, or copyright holding forced to the OpenStack Foundation

2016-01-15 Thread Daniel P. Berrange 
On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 12:53:49PM +, Chris Dent wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jan 2016, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> 
> >Whatever we choose, I think we should ban having copyright holding text
> >within our source code. While licensing is a good idea, as it is
> >accurate, the copyright holding information isn't and it's just missleading.
> 
> I think we should not add new copyright notifications in files.
> 
> I'd also be happy to see all the existing ones removed, but that may
> be a bigger problem.

Only the copyright holder who added the notice is permitted to
remove it. ie you can't unilaterally remove Copyright notices
added by other copyright holders. See LICENSE term (4)(c)

While you could undertake an exercise to get agreement from
every copyright holder to remote their notices, its is honestly
not worth the work IMHO.

> >If I was the only person to choose, I'd say let's go for 1/, but
> >probably managers of every company wont agree.
> 
> I think option one is correct.

Copyright assignment is never the correct answer.

Regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: http://berrange.com  -o-http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org  -o- http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org   -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org   -o-   http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Proposal: copyright-holders file in each project, or copyright holding forced to the OpenStack Foundation

2016-01-15 Thread Daniel P. Berrange 
On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 08:48:21PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> This isn't the first time I'm calling for it. Let's hope this time, I'll
> be heard.
> 
> Randomly, contributors put their company names into source code. When
> they do, then effectively, this tells that a given source file copyright
> holder is whatever is claimed, even though someone from another company
> may have patched it.
> 
> As a result, we have a huge mess. It's impossible for me, as a package
> maintainer, to accurately set the copyright holder names in the
> debian/copyright file, which is a required by the Debian FTP masters.

I don't think OpenStack is in a different situation to the vast
majority of open source projects I've worked with or seen. Except
for those projects requiring copyright assignment to a single
entity, it is normal for source files to contain an unreliable
random splattering of Copyright notices. This hasn't seemed to
create a blocking problem for their maintenance in Debian. Loooking
at the debian/copyright files I see most of them have just done a
grep for the 'Copyright' statements & included as is - IOW just
ignored the fact that this is essentially worthless info and included
it regardless.

> I see 2 ways forward:
> 1/ Require everyone to give-up copyright holding, and give it to the
> OpenStack Foundation.
> 2/ Maintain a copyright-holder file in each project.

3/ Do nothing, just populate debian/copyright with the random
   set of 'Copyright' lines that happen to be the source files,
   as appears to be common practice across many debian packages

   eg the kernel package


http://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs/main/l/linux/linux_3.16.7-ckt11-1+deb8u3_copyright

"Copyright: 1991-2012 Linus Torvalds and many others"

   if its good enough for the Debian kernel package, it should be
   good enough for openstack packages too IMHO.


Regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: http://berrange.com  -o-http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org  -o- http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org   -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org   -o-   http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Proposal: copyright-holders file in each project, or copyright holding forced to the OpenStack Foundation

2016-01-15 Thread Monty Taylor 

On 01/15/2016 10:28 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 12:53:49PM +, Chris Dent wrote:

On Fri, 15 Jan 2016, Thomas Goirand wrote:


Whatever we choose, I think we should ban having copyright holding text
within our source code. While licensing is a good idea, as it is
accurate, the copyright holding information isn't and it's just missleading.


I think we should not add new copyright notifications in files.

I'd also be happy to see all the existing ones removed, but that may
be a bigger problem.


Only the copyright holder who added the notice is permitted to
remove it. ie you can't unilaterally remove Copyright notices
added by other copyright holders. See LICENSE term (4)(c)

While you could undertake an exercise to get agreement from
every copyright holder to remote their notices, its is honestly
not worth the work IMHO.


++ - also, there are people/companies from which you'll never get it.


If I was the only person to choose, I'd say let's go for 1/, but
probably managers of every company wont agree.


I think option one is correct.


Copyright assignment is never the correct answer.


+1


__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Proposal: copyright-holders file in each project, or copyright holding forced to the OpenStack Foundation

2016-01-15 Thread Monty Taylor 

On 01/15/2016 10:38 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 08:48:21PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:

This isn't the first time I'm calling for it. Let's hope this time, I'll
be heard.

Randomly, contributors put their company names into source code. When
they do, then effectively, this tells that a given source file copyright
holder is whatever is claimed, even though someone from another company
may have patched it.

As a result, we have a huge mess. It's impossible for me, as a package
maintainer, to accurately set the copyright holder names in the
debian/copyright file, which is a required by the Debian FTP masters.


I don't think OpenStack is in a different situation to the vast
majority of open source projects I've worked with or seen. Except
for those projects requiring copyright assignment to a single
entity, it is normal for source files to contain an unreliable
random splattering of Copyright notices. This hasn't seemed to
create a blocking problem for their maintenance in Debian. Loooking
at the debian/copyright files I see most of them have just done a
grep for the 'Copyright' statements & included as is - IOW just
ignored the fact that this is essentially worthless info and included
it regardless.


Agree. debian/copyright should be a best effort - but it can only be as 
good as the input data available to the packager. Try getting an 
accurate debian/copyright file for the MySQL source tree at some point. 
(and good luck)



I see 2 ways forward:
1/ Require everyone to give-up copyright holding, and give it to the
OpenStack Foundation.
2/ Maintain a copyright-holder file in each project.



3/ Do nothing, just populate debian/copyright with the random
set of 'Copyright' lines that happen to be the source files,
as appears to be common practice across many debian packages

eg the kernel package

 
http://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs/main/l/linux/linux_3.16.7-ckt11-1+deb8u3_copyright

 "Copyright: 1991-2012 Linus Torvalds and many others"

if its good enough for the Debian kernel package, it should be
good enough for openstack packages too IMHO.


I vote for 3


__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Proposal: copyright-holders file in each project, or copyright holding forced to the OpenStack Foundation

2016-01-15 Thread Thomas Goirand 
On 01/15/2016 11:38 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 08:48:21PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> This isn't the first time I'm calling for it. Let's hope this time, I'll
>> be heard.
>>
>> Randomly, contributors put their company names into source code. When
>> they do, then effectively, this tells that a given source file copyright
>> holder is whatever is claimed, even though someone from another company
>> may have patched it.
>>
>> As a result, we have a huge mess. It's impossible for me, as a package
>> maintainer, to accurately set the copyright holder names in the
>> debian/copyright file, which is a required by the Debian FTP masters.
> 
> I don't think OpenStack is in a different situation to the vast
> majority of open source projects I've worked with or seen. Except
> for those projects requiring copyright assignment to a single
> entity, it is normal for source files to contain an unreliable
> random splattering of Copyright notices. This hasn't seemed to
> create a blocking problem for their maintenance in Debian. Loooking
> at the debian/copyright files I see most of them have just done a
> grep for the 'Copyright' statements & included as is - IOW just
> ignored the fact that this is essentially worthless info and included
> it regardless.

Correct, that's how I do things. And that's what I would like to fix.

>> I see 2 ways forward:
>> 1/ Require everyone to give-up copyright holding, and give it to the
>> OpenStack Foundation.
>> 2/ Maintain a copyright-holder file in each project.
> 
> 3/ Do nothing, just populate debian/copyright with the random
>set of 'Copyright' lines that happen to be the source files,
>as appears to be common practice across many debian packages
> 
>eg the kernel package
> 
> 
> http://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs/main/l/linux/linux_3.16.7-ckt11-1+deb8u3_copyright
> 
> "Copyright: 1991-2012 Linus Torvalds and many others"
> 
>if its good enough for the Debian kernel package, it should be
>good enough for openstack packages too IMHO.

I've just asked this very point with the same example to the FTP
masters. Let's see what they say...

Cheers,

Thomas Goirand (zigo)


__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Proposal: copyright-holders file in each project, or copyright holding forced to the OpenStack Foundation

2016-01-15 Thread Arkady_Kanevsky 
Either 1 or 3.
2 does not solve anything.

-Original Message-
From: Monty Taylor [mailto:mord...@inaugust.com]
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 10:01 AM
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Proposal: copyright-holders file in each 
project, or copyright holding forced to the OpenStack Foundation

On 01/15/2016 10:38 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 08:48:21PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> This isn't the first time I'm calling for it. Let's hope this time,
>> I'll be heard.
>>
>> Randomly, contributors put their company names into source code. When
>> they do, then effectively, this tells that a given source file
>> copyright holder is whatever is claimed, even though someone from
>> another company may have patched it.
>>
>> As a result, we have a huge mess. It's impossible for me, as a
>> package maintainer, to accurately set the copyright holder names in
>> the debian/copyright file, which is a required by the Debian FTP masters.
>
> I don't think OpenStack is in a different situation to the vast
> majority of open source projects I've worked with or seen. Except for
> those projects requiring copyright assignment to a single entity, it
> is normal for source files to contain an unreliable random splattering
> of Copyright notices. This hasn't seemed to create a blocking problem
> for their maintenance in Debian. Loooking at the debian/copyright
> files I see most of them have just done a grep for the 'Copyright'
> statements & included as is - IOW just ignored the fact that this is
> essentially worthless info and included it regardless.

Agree. debian/copyright should be a best effort - but it can only be as good as 
the input data available to the packager. Try getting an accurate 
debian/copyright file for the MySQL source tree at some point.
(and good luck)

>> I see 2 ways forward:
>> 1/ Require everyone to give-up copyright holding, and give it to the
>> OpenStack Foundation.
>> 2/ Maintain a copyright-holder file in each project.

> 3/ Do nothing, just populate debian/copyright with the random
> set of 'Copyright' lines that happen to be the source files,
> as appears to be common practice across many debian packages
>
> eg the kernel package
>
>
> http://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs/main/l/linux/linux_3.
> 16.7-ckt11-1+deb8u3_copyright
>
> "Copyright: 1991-2012 Linus Torvalds and many others"
>
> if its good enough for the Debian kernel package, it should be
> good enough for openstack packages too IMHO.

I vote for 3


__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Proposal: copyright-holders file in each project, or copyright holding forced to the OpenStack Foundation

2016-01-15 Thread Thomas Goirand 
On 01/15/2016 11:26 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> On 2016-01-15 23:09:34 +0800 (+0800), Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> On 01/15/2016 09:57 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> [...]
>>> resulting in the summary at
>>> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/LegalIssuesFAQ#Copyright_Headers for
>>> those who choose to learn from history rather than repeating it.
>>
>> Well, this wiki entry doesn't even have a single line about copyright
>> holding, it only tells about licensing and how/when to put a license
>> header in source code. Or did I miss it when reading too fast?
> 
> What? That entire section I linked is _only_ about copyright
> headers.

holder != header


__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Proposal: copyright-holders file in each project, or copyright holding forced to the OpenStack Foundation

2016-01-15 Thread Thomas Goirand 
On 01/15/2016 11:28 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 12:53:49PM +, Chris Dent wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 Jan 2016, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>>
>>> Whatever we choose, I think we should ban having copyright holding text
>>> within our source code. While licensing is a good idea, as it is
>>> accurate, the copyright holding information isn't and it's just missleading.
>>
>> I think we should not add new copyright notifications in files.
>>
>> I'd also be happy to see all the existing ones removed, but that may
>> be a bigger problem.
> 
> Only the copyright holder who added the notice is permitted to
> remove it. ie you can't unilaterally remove Copyright notices
> added by other copyright holders. See LICENSE term (4)(c)
> 
> While you could undertake an exercise to get agreement from
> every copyright holder to remote their notices, its is honestly
> not worth the work IMHO.

Though we could ask copyright holders to declare giving it to the
foundation.

>>> If I was the only person to choose, I'd say let's go for 1/, but
>>> probably managers of every company wont agree.
>>
>> I think option one is correct.
> 
> Copyright assignment is never the correct answer.

We don't have to force it, we can politely ask... Also, if we have a
top-level file declaring copyright holding by the foundation, if nobody
write in individual files, it is as if they agreed.

Cheers,

Thomas Goirand (zigo)


__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev