Re: FileCopyrightText...
On 29 January 2024 12:31:44 GMT, Harald Sitter wrote: > On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 10:49 AM Carl Schwan wrote: > > > > On Monday, January 29, 2024 10:43:04 AM CET Harald Sitter wrote: > > > do we really need it? > > > > > > systemd for example only has a spdx license header, resulting in much > > > tidier file headers. > > > > > > I entirely fail to understand why we need to slap a FileCopyrightText > > > on files. The copyright surely applies whether or not I put the > > > FileCopyrightText there. The list is also just about always > > > incomplete, further calling its use into question. Not to mention that > > > it is annoying book keeping of information that is already available > > > in git. > > > > > > Can someone shed some light on this? > > > > The reuse FAQ has an entry about why only keeping the copyright information > > in > > git is a bad idea: https://reuse.software/faq/#vcs-copyright > > Yes, that makes no sense to me. Whether I put my copyright stamp on a > file or not has no impact on whether I actually have copyright. That > is to say when someone doesn't add their stamp they would still be a > copyright holder. Which means that unless everyone who ever touched a > file puts their stamp on it, which is something we didn't and don't > enforce, the list is inherently incomplete and by extension useless > ... So, authorship data is in fact more relevant here because you get > all would-be copyright holders, not just the ones that bothered to put > their stamp on the file. No? ... Obviously the authors list may still > be incomplete but I'm willing to put money on the fact that 9/10 it is > more complete than whatever the license headers proclaim to be the > case. Although copyright only applies to non-trivial changes, so the actual set of copyright holders is likely to lie somewhere between the authors list in the headers and the full list provided from git commits. -- David Jarvie KAlarm author, KDE developer
Re: FileCopyrightText...
On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 10:49 AM Carl Schwan wrote: > > On Monday, January 29, 2024 10:43:04 AM CET Harald Sitter wrote: > > do we really need it? > > > > systemd for example only has a spdx license header, resulting in much > > tidier file headers. > > > > I entirely fail to understand why we need to slap a FileCopyrightText > > on files. The copyright surely applies whether or not I put the > > FileCopyrightText there. The list is also just about always > > incomplete, further calling its use into question. Not to mention that > > it is annoying book keeping of information that is already available > > in git. > > > > Can someone shed some light on this? > > The reuse FAQ has an entry about why only keeping the copyright information in > git is a bad idea: https://reuse.software/faq/#vcs-copyright Yes, that makes no sense to me. Whether I put my copyright stamp on a file or not has no impact on whether I actually have copyright. That is to say when someone doesn't add their stamp they would still be a copyright holder. Which means that unless everyone who ever touched a file puts their stamp on it, which is something we didn't and don't enforce, the list is inherently incomplete and by extension useless ... So, authorship data is in fact more relevant here because you get all would-be copyright holders, not just the ones that bothered to put their stamp on the file. No? ... Obviously the authors list may still be incomplete but I'm willing to put money on the fact that 9/10 it is more complete than whatever the license headers proclaim to be the case. > Also when copying file between repo, the git history for that file is often > lost. That is a fair point. TBH I am more arguing against our current policy of requiring this field. If someone wants to put their stamp on a file I have no interest in stopping them. But, I for one would be content with just putting the license there, hence my ponderings. HS
Re: FileCopyrightText...
On Monday, January 29, 2024 10:43:04 AM CET Harald Sitter wrote: > do we really need it? > > systemd for example only has a spdx license header, resulting in much > tidier file headers. > > I entirely fail to understand why we need to slap a FileCopyrightText > on files. The copyright surely applies whether or not I put the > FileCopyrightText there. The list is also just about always > incomplete, further calling its use into question. Not to mention that > it is annoying book keeping of information that is already available > in git. > > Can someone shed some light on this? The reuse FAQ has an entry about why only keeping the copyright information in git is a bad idea: https://reuse.software/faq/#vcs-copyright Also when copying file between repo, the git history for that file is often lost. Cheers, Carl > > HS
Re: FileCopyrightText...
On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 9:43 AM Harald Sitter wrote: > > do we really need it? > > systemd for example only has a spdx license header, resulting in much > tidier file headers. > > I entirely fail to understand why we need to slap a FileCopyrightText > on files. The copyright surely applies whether or not I put the > FileCopyrightText there. The list is also just about always > incomplete, further calling its use into question. Not to mention that > it is annoying book keeping of information that is already available > in git. > > Can someone shed some light on this? > It is part of REUSE/SPDX policy for handling attribution. The name of this label is misleading, but what it does is important. The systemd project's adoption of SPDX-License-Identifier mimicked the Linux kernel's pattern, but the Linux kernel did not drop the rest of the header. That said, as a systemd contributor, I refused to have my attribution statements erased from the files I substantially contributed to, so they stand today in the sources. I will also note that I am not a fan of REUSE overall, but I'm even less of a fan of dropping attribution from sources. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
FileCopyrightText...
do we really need it? systemd for example only has a spdx license header, resulting in much tidier file headers. I entirely fail to understand why we need to slap a FileCopyrightText on files. The copyright surely applies whether or not I put the FileCopyrightText there. The list is also just about always incomplete, further calling its use into question. Not to mention that it is annoying book keeping of information that is already available in git. Can someone shed some light on this? HS
