[weston] Update COPYING

Submitted by Daniel Stone on Feb. 13, 2017, 9:45 p.m.

Details

Message ID 20170213214558.14493-1-daniels@collabora.com
State New
Headers show
Series "Update COPYING" ( rev: 1 ) in Wayland

Not browsing as part of any series.

Commit Message

Daniel Stone Feb. 13, 2017, 9:45 p.m.
Include a list of every copyright statement within the COPYING file.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Stone <daniels@collabora.com>
---
 COPYING | 37 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

Patch hide | download patch | download mbox

diff --git a/COPYING b/COPYING
index faefd8f..418b4b4 100644
--- a/COPYING
+++ b/COPYING
@@ -1,8 +1,35 @@ 
-Copyright © 2008-2012 Kristian Høgsberg
-Copyright © 2010-2012 Intel Corporation
-Copyright © 2010-2011 Benjamin Franzke
-Copyright © 2011-2012 Collabora, Ltd.
-Copyright © 2010 Red Hat <mjg@redhat.com>
+Copyright © 2008 Tungsten Graphics, Inc.
+Copyright © 2008-2013 Kristian Høgsberg
+Copryight © 2009 Chris Wilson
+Copyright © 2011-2012 Benjamin Franzke
+Copyright © 2010-2013 Intel Corporation
+Copyright © 2010-2015 Red Hat
+Copyright © 2011 Tim Wiederhake
+Copyright © 2011-2016 Collabora, Ltd.
+Copyright © 2012 John Kåre Alsaker
+Copyright © 2012 Martin Minarik
+Copyright © 2012 Openismus GmbH
+Copyright © 2012 Philipp Brüschweiler
+Copyright © 2012 Rob Clark
+Copyright © 2012 Sam Spilsbury
+Copyright © 2012 Scott Moreau
+Copyright © 2012-2013 Jonas Ådahl
+Copyright © 2012-2013 Raspberry Pi Foundation
+Copyright © 2013 David FORT
+Copyright © 2013 David Herrmann
+Copyright © 2013 Philip Withnall
+Copyright © 2013 Rafael Antognolli
+Copyright © 2013 Richard Hughes
+Copyright © 2013 Vasily Khoruzhick
+Copyright © 2013-2015 Jasper St. Pierre
+Copyright © 2013-1014 Jason Ekstrand
+Copyright © 2013-2016 DENSO CORPORATION
+Copyright © 2014 Pekka Paalanen
+Copyright © 2015 General Electric Company
+Copyright © 2015-2016 Samsung Electrics Co., Ltd
+Copryight © 2016 Armin Krezović
+Copyright © 2016 Benoit Gschwind
+Copyright © 2016 NVIDIA Corporation
  
 Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a
 copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"),

Comments

On 13/02/17 03:45 PM, Daniel Stone wrote:
> Include a list of every copyright statement within the COPYING file.
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Stone <daniels@collabora.com>

Reviewed-by: Derek Foreman <derekf@osg.samsung.com>

Looks harmless to include in the release, but I'll leave that call to Bryce.

Thanks,
Derek

> ---
>  COPYING | 37 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>  1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/COPYING b/COPYING
> index faefd8f..418b4b4 100644
> --- a/COPYING
> +++ b/COPYING
> @@ -1,8 +1,35 @@
> -Copyright © 2008-2012 Kristian Høgsberg
> -Copyright © 2010-2012 Intel Corporation
> -Copyright © 2010-2011 Benjamin Franzke
> -Copyright © 2011-2012 Collabora, Ltd.
> -Copyright © 2010 Red Hat <mjg@redhat.com>
> +Copyright © 2008 Tungsten Graphics, Inc.
> +Copyright © 2008-2013 Kristian Høgsberg
> +Copryight © 2009 Chris Wilson
> +Copyright © 2011-2012 Benjamin Franzke
> +Copyright © 2010-2013 Intel Corporation
> +Copyright © 2010-2015 Red Hat
> +Copyright © 2011 Tim Wiederhake
> +Copyright © 2011-2016 Collabora, Ltd.
> +Copyright © 2012 John Kåre Alsaker
> +Copyright © 2012 Martin Minarik
> +Copyright © 2012 Openismus GmbH
> +Copyright © 2012 Philipp Brüschweiler
> +Copyright © 2012 Rob Clark
> +Copyright © 2012 Sam Spilsbury
> +Copyright © 2012 Scott Moreau
> +Copyright © 2012-2013 Jonas Ådahl
> +Copyright © 2012-2013 Raspberry Pi Foundation
> +Copyright © 2013 David FORT
> +Copyright © 2013 David Herrmann
> +Copyright © 2013 Philip Withnall
> +Copyright © 2013 Rafael Antognolli
> +Copyright © 2013 Richard Hughes
> +Copyright © 2013 Vasily Khoruzhick
> +Copyright © 2013-2015 Jasper St. Pierre
> +Copyright © 2013-1014 Jason Ekstrand
> +Copyright © 2013-2016 DENSO CORPORATION
> +Copyright © 2014 Pekka Paalanen
> +Copyright © 2015 General Electric Company
> +Copyright © 2015-2016 Samsung Electrics Co., Ltd
> +Copryight © 2016 Armin Krezović
> +Copyright © 2016 Benoit Gschwind
> +Copyright © 2016 NVIDIA Corporation
>
>  Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a
>  copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"),
>
On Wednesday 2017-02-15 16:02, Derek Foreman wrote:
>> diff --git a/COPYING b/COPYING
>> index faefd8f..418b4b4 100644
>> --- a/COPYING
>> +++ b/COPYING
>> @@ -1,8 +1,35 @@
>> +Copyright © 2008 Tungsten Graphics, Inc.
>> +Copyright © 2008-2013 Kristian Høgsberg

Since © already means Copyright, one of the two is redundant.
Hi Jan,

On 15 February 2017 at 15:05, Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@inai.de> wrote:
> On Wednesday 2017-02-15 16:02, Derek Foreman wrote:
>>> diff --git a/COPYING b/COPYING
>>> index faefd8f..418b4b4 100644
>>> --- a/COPYING
>>> +++ b/COPYING
>>> @@ -1,8 +1,35 @@
>>> +Copyright © 2008 Tungsten Graphics, Inc.
>>> +Copyright © 2008-2013 Kristian Høgsberg
>
> Since © already means Copyright, one of the two is redundant.

Thanks, but whilst that is true, this form is the dominant form in
Wayland and Weston, in X.Org (where the habit came from, I assume), a
sizeable minority in Mesa (~25%), and a much smaller minority in the
kernel as well. Given that this makes things extremely clear and
unambiguous, I don't intend to expend any effort changing the wording,
only to find out later that one jurisdiction requires the literal word
'copyright' and another requires the symbol.

Cheers,
Daniel
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 21:45:58 +0000
Daniel Stone <daniels@collabora.com> wrote:

> Include a list of every copyright statement within the COPYING file.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Stone <daniels@collabora.com>
> ---
>  COPYING | 37 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>  1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/COPYING b/COPYING
> index faefd8f..418b4b4 100644
> --- a/COPYING
> +++ b/COPYING
> @@ -1,8 +1,35 @@
> -Copyright © 2008-2012 Kristian Høgsberg
> -Copyright © 2010-2012 Intel Corporation
> -Copyright © 2010-2011 Benjamin Franzke
> -Copyright © 2011-2012 Collabora, Ltd.
> -Copyright © 2010 Red Hat <mjg@redhat.com>
> +Copyright © 2008 Tungsten Graphics, Inc.
> +Copyright © 2008-2013 Kristian Høgsberg
> +Copryight © 2009 Chris Wilson
> +Copyright © 2011-2012 Benjamin Franzke
> +Copyright © 2010-2013 Intel Corporation
> +Copyright © 2010-2015 Red Hat
> +Copyright © 2011 Tim Wiederhake
> +Copyright © 2011-2016 Collabora, Ltd.
> +Copyright © 2012 John Kåre Alsaker
> +Copyright © 2012 Martin Minarik
> +Copyright © 2012 Openismus GmbH
> +Copyright © 2012 Philipp Brüschweiler
> +Copyright © 2012 Rob Clark
> +Copyright © 2012 Sam Spilsbury
> +Copyright © 2012 Scott Moreau
> +Copyright © 2012-2013 Jonas Ådahl
> +Copyright © 2012-2013 Raspberry Pi Foundation
> +Copyright © 2013 David FORT
> +Copyright © 2013 David Herrmann
> +Copyright © 2013 Philip Withnall
> +Copyright © 2013 Rafael Antognolli
> +Copyright © 2013 Richard Hughes
> +Copyright © 2013 Vasily Khoruzhick
> +Copyright © 2013-2015 Jasper St. Pierre
> +Copyright © 2013-1014 Jason Ekstrand
> +Copyright © 2013-2016 DENSO CORPORATION
> +Copyright © 2014 Pekka Paalanen
> +Copyright © 2015 General Electric Company
> +Copyright © 2015-2016 Samsung Electrics Co., Ltd
> +Copryight © 2016 Armin Krezović
> +Copyright © 2016 Benoit Gschwind
> +Copyright © 2016 NVIDIA Corporation
>   
>  Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a
>  copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"),

Hi,

I have been verifying this with:

$ while read LINE; do if [ -z "$LINE" ]; then break; fi; echo "---"; grep -nR "$(echo "$LINE" | cut -d' ' -f4-)" *; done < COPYING

and I saw some discrepancies:
- Kristian should be 2008-2012, not 2013
- Intel should be 2009-2013
- Spilsbury should be 2013
- David FORT is not found, but I recall he's the RDP backend author, so
  definitely has copyright, the line in compositor-rdp.c is just
  something else.
- Rafael Antognolli is not found?
- Jasper St. Pierre should be 2015 only
- Samsung Electrics Co., Ltd should be Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd

We talked in IRC, and noticed that you included generated files whose
source (XML files) are not in Weston repository and we do not
distribute the generated files at all.

We agreed to see about a v2.


Thanks,
pq
On 17/02/17 07:47 AM, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 21:45:58 +0000
> Daniel Stone <daniels@collabora.com> wrote:
>
>> Include a list of every copyright statement within the COPYING file.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Stone <daniels@collabora.com>
>> ---
>>  COPYING | 37 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>>  1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/COPYING b/COPYING
>> index faefd8f..418b4b4 100644
>> --- a/COPYING
>> +++ b/COPYING
>> @@ -1,8 +1,35 @@
>> -Copyright © 2008-2012 Kristian Høgsberg
>> -Copyright © 2010-2012 Intel Corporation
>> -Copyright © 2010-2011 Benjamin Franzke
>> -Copyright © 2011-2012 Collabora, Ltd.
>> -Copyright © 2010 Red Hat <mjg@redhat.com>
>> +Copyright © 2008 Tungsten Graphics, Inc.
>> +Copyright © 2008-2013 Kristian Høgsberg
>> +Copryight © 2009 Chris Wilson
>> +Copyright © 2011-2012 Benjamin Franzke
>> +Copyright © 2010-2013 Intel Corporation
>> +Copyright © 2010-2015 Red Hat
>> +Copyright © 2011 Tim Wiederhake
>> +Copyright © 2011-2016 Collabora, Ltd.
>> +Copyright © 2012 John Kåre Alsaker
>> +Copyright © 2012 Martin Minarik
>> +Copyright © 2012 Openismus GmbH
>> +Copyright © 2012 Philipp Brüschweiler
>> +Copyright © 2012 Rob Clark
>> +Copyright © 2012 Sam Spilsbury
>> +Copyright © 2012 Scott Moreau
>> +Copyright © 2012-2013 Jonas Ådahl
>> +Copyright © 2012-2013 Raspberry Pi Foundation
>> +Copyright © 2013 David FORT
>> +Copyright © 2013 David Herrmann
>> +Copyright © 2013 Philip Withnall
>> +Copyright © 2013 Rafael Antognolli
>> +Copyright © 2013 Richard Hughes
>> +Copyright © 2013 Vasily Khoruzhick
>> +Copyright © 2013-2015 Jasper St. Pierre
>> +Copyright © 2013-1014 Jason Ekstrand
>> +Copyright © 2013-2016 DENSO CORPORATION
>> +Copyright © 2014 Pekka Paalanen
>> +Copyright © 2015 General Electric Company
>> +Copyright © 2015-2016 Samsung Electrics Co., Ltd
>> +Copryight © 2016 Armin Krezović
>> +Copyright © 2016 Benoit Gschwind
>> +Copyright © 2016 NVIDIA Corporation
>>
>>  Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a
>>  copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"),
>
> Hi,
>
> I have been verifying this with:
>
> $ while read LINE; do if [ -z "$LINE" ]; then break; fi; echo "---"; grep -nR "$(echo "$LINE" | cut -d' ' -f4-)" *; done < COPYING
>
> and I saw some discrepancies:
> - Kristian should be 2008-2012, not 2013
> - Intel should be 2009-2013
> - Spilsbury should be 2013
> - David FORT is not found, but I recall he's the RDP backend author, so
>   definitely has copyright, the line in compositor-rdp.c is just
>   something else.
> - Rafael Antognolli is not found?
> - Jasper St. Pierre should be 2015 only
> - Samsung Electrics Co., Ltd should be Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd
>
> We talked in IRC, and noticed that you included generated files whose
> source (XML files) are not in Weston repository and we do not
> distribute the generated files at all.
>
> We agreed to see about a v2.

How about we just remove all the copyrights from COPYING and let anyone 
that needs to collate this list do it themselves...

That way we don't need to remember to update it in 2 weeks when someone 
adds a copyright to a file and doesn't realize we duplicate the info in 
COPYING? :)

Don't shoot me,
Derek

>
> Thanks,
> pq
>
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 07:50:45AM -0600, Derek Foreman wrote:
> On 17/02/17 07:47 AM, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> >On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 21:45:58 +0000
> >Daniel Stone <daniels@collabora.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Include a list of every copyright statement within the COPYING file.
> >>
> >>Signed-off-by: Daniel Stone <daniels@collabora.com>
> >>---
> >> COPYING | 37 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> >> 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >>
> >>diff --git a/COPYING b/COPYING
> >>index faefd8f..418b4b4 100644
> >>--- a/COPYING
> >>+++ b/COPYING
> >>@@ -1,8 +1,35 @@
> >>-Copyright © 2008-2012 Kristian Høgsberg
> >>-Copyright © 2010-2012 Intel Corporation
> >>-Copyright © 2010-2011 Benjamin Franzke
> >>-Copyright © 2011-2012 Collabora, Ltd.
> >>-Copyright © 2010 Red Hat <mjg@redhat.com>
> >>+Copyright © 2008 Tungsten Graphics, Inc.
> >>+Copyright © 2008-2013 Kristian Høgsberg
> >>+Copryight © 2009 Chris Wilson
> >>+Copyright © 2011-2012 Benjamin Franzke
> >>+Copyright © 2010-2013 Intel Corporation
> >>+Copyright © 2010-2015 Red Hat
> >>+Copyright © 2011 Tim Wiederhake
> >>+Copyright © 2011-2016 Collabora, Ltd.
> >>+Copyright © 2012 John Kåre Alsaker
> >>+Copyright © 2012 Martin Minarik
> >>+Copyright © 2012 Openismus GmbH
> >>+Copyright © 2012 Philipp Brüschweiler
> >>+Copyright © 2012 Rob Clark
> >>+Copyright © 2012 Sam Spilsbury
> >>+Copyright © 2012 Scott Moreau
> >>+Copyright © 2012-2013 Jonas Ådahl
> >>+Copyright © 2012-2013 Raspberry Pi Foundation
> >>+Copyright © 2013 David FORT
> >>+Copyright © 2013 David Herrmann
> >>+Copyright © 2013 Philip Withnall
> >>+Copyright © 2013 Rafael Antognolli
> >>+Copyright © 2013 Richard Hughes
> >>+Copyright © 2013 Vasily Khoruzhick
> >>+Copyright © 2013-2015 Jasper St. Pierre
> >>+Copyright © 2013-1014 Jason Ekstrand
> >>+Copyright © 2013-2016 DENSO CORPORATION
> >>+Copyright © 2014 Pekka Paalanen
> >>+Copyright © 2015 General Electric Company
> >>+Copyright © 2015-2016 Samsung Electrics Co., Ltd
> >>+Copryight © 2016 Armin Krezović
> >>+Copyright © 2016 Benoit Gschwind
> >>+Copyright © 2016 NVIDIA Corporation
> >>
> >> Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a
> >> copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"),
> >
> >Hi,
> >
> >I have been verifying this with:
> >
> >$ while read LINE; do if [ -z "$LINE" ]; then break; fi; echo "---"; grep -nR "$(echo "$LINE" | cut -d' ' -f4-)" *; done < COPYING
> >
> >and I saw some discrepancies:
> >- Kristian should be 2008-2012, not 2013
> >- Intel should be 2009-2013
> >- Spilsbury should be 2013
> >- David FORT is not found, but I recall he's the RDP backend author, so
> >  definitely has copyright, the line in compositor-rdp.c is just
> >  something else.
> >- Rafael Antognolli is not found?
> >- Jasper St. Pierre should be 2015 only
> >- Samsung Electrics Co., Ltd should be Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd
> >
> >We talked in IRC, and noticed that you included generated files whose
> >source (XML files) are not in Weston repository and we do not
> >distribute the generated files at all.
> >
> >We agreed to see about a v2.
> 
> How about we just remove all the copyrights from COPYING and let
> anyone that needs to collate this list do it themselves...
> 
> That way we don't need to remember to update it in 2 weeks when
> someone adds a copyright to a file and doesn't realize we duplicate
> the info in COPYING? :)

+1

It seems atypical amongst open source projects to have an exhaustive
(and duplicative as pointed out) listing of copyright statements.  Has
there been an issue raised from outside the project that this listing
would solve?

Bryce
Hi,

On 17 February 2017 at 17:12, Bryce Harrington <bryce@osg.samsung.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 07:50:45AM -0600, Derek Foreman wrote:
>> How about we just remove all the copyrights from COPYING and let
>> anyone that needs to collate this list do it themselves...
>>
>> That way we don't need to remember to update it in 2 weeks when
>> someone adds a copyright to a file and doesn't realize we duplicate
>> the info in COPYING? :)
>
> +1
>
> It seems atypical amongst open source projects to have an exhaustive
> (and duplicative as pointed out) listing of copyright statements.  Has
> there been an issue raised from outside the project that this listing
> would solve?

The X projects all have it, at least. Everyone who distributes it
(distributions, companies building products, etc) need to have
something that at least minimally conforms to the Mesa licensing
document: a full statement of the license, and at least a vague
indication of the copyrights. Depending on the legal department
involved, they may end up compiling this exact list for their own use.
Either way, just deleting the entire thing is going to unnecessarily
annoy downstreams.

I'd be fine to reduce it to the minimal license text, but that doesn't
free us up from needing to check incoming source to make sure it
conforms to the same license. We should really also merge data/COPYING
into the core COPYING.

Cheers,
Daniel
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 05:19:55PM +0000, Daniel Stone wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 17 February 2017 at 17:12, Bryce Harrington <bryce@osg.samsung.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 07:50:45AM -0600, Derek Foreman wrote:
> >> How about we just remove all the copyrights from COPYING and let
> >> anyone that needs to collate this list do it themselves...
> >>
> >> That way we don't need to remember to update it in 2 weeks when
> >> someone adds a copyright to a file and doesn't realize we duplicate
> >> the info in COPYING? :)
> >
> > +1
> >
> > It seems atypical amongst open source projects to have an exhaustive
> > (and duplicative as pointed out) listing of copyright statements.  Has
> > there been an issue raised from outside the project that this listing
> > would solve?
> 
> The X projects all have it, at least.

I only spot checked, and you would know better than me, but the ones I
looked at appeared to just list key/major copyright holders (which does
seem sensible).  "Vague indications of copyrights", as you mention below.

> Everyone who distributes it
> (distributions, companies building products, etc) need to have
> something that at least minimally conforms to the Mesa licensing
> document: a full statement of the license, and at least a vague
> indication of the copyrights. Depending on the legal department
> involved, they may end up compiling this exact list for their own use.

I've done a couple such conformance checks in the past, and indeed I had
to compile such a list, so you're certainly right.  But as pq showed,
it's a straightforward set of shell commands to do it.  And actually, if
I were doing a conformance check, I wouldn't trust that the COPYING file
was being kept up to date so would do that scan regardless.  Indeed, if
there were any descrepancies that showed up I would feel compelled to
investigate each of them.  IOW rather than saving time the COPYING file
might actually create an bit of extra work for compliance checker.
Frankly, the script itself might be more valuable in this regard, so
maybe that's what should be included in the tree?

If the ultimate goal is to help make compliance checking easier, I would
suggest focusing on fixing any irregularities in the files themselves -
e.g. continuing to ensuring dates and copyright formats are correct,
that boilerplate licensing text is consistent across files, etc., as
folks have been doing, so that running a scan is clean and reliable.

OTOH, if the goal is about giving recognition to contributors, an
AUTHORS or CONTRIBUTORS file seems to be more conventionally used
approaches.

> I'd be fine to reduce it to the minimal license text, but that doesn't
> free us up from needing to check incoming source to make sure it
> conforms to the same license. We should really also merge data/COPYING
> into the core COPYING.

Obviously checking licenses on incoming code is always extremely
important. :-)

I'm not sure what you're suggesting by reducing it to the minimal
license, the file only includes one license statement so appears to be
minimal already; I'm not suggesting copyrights *shouldn't* be present,
or that any of the existing ones should be removed.  AIUI it's required
to have at least one copyright statement, and seems pretty standard to
list the major copyright holders (esp. any companies/individuals with a
legal interest.)  The main purpose of COPYING, though, is the licensing,
to document how the codebase can be shared and reused.

You're probably right that merging data/COPYING and COPYING makes
sense, but I've seen enough other projects that had subdir-specific
licensing gunk that I'm not really worried about it.  I'd be fine
either way.

Bryce
Hi Bryce,
Sorry, totally neglected this whilst travelling.

On 17 February 2017 at 18:09, Bryce Harrington <bryce@osg.samsung.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 05:19:55PM +0000, Daniel Stone wrote:
>> On 17 February 2017 at 17:12, Bryce Harrington <bryce@osg.samsung.com> wrote:
>> > It seems atypical amongst open source projects to have an exhaustive
>> > (and duplicative as pointed out) listing of copyright statements.  Has
>> > there been an issue raised from outside the project that this listing
>> > would solve?
>>
>> The X projects all have it, at least.
>
> I only spot checked, and you would know better than me, but the ones I
> looked at appeared to just list key/major copyright holders (which does
> seem sensible).  "Vague indications of copyrights", as you mention below.

Hm, xserver I thought was at least exhaustive.

>> Everyone who distributes it
>> (distributions, companies building products, etc) need to have
>> something that at least minimally conforms to the Mesa licensing
>> document: a full statement of the license, and at least a vague
>> indication of the copyrights. Depending on the legal department
>> involved, they may end up compiling this exact list for their own use.
>
> I've done a couple such conformance checks in the past, and indeed I had
> to compile such a list, so you're certainly right.  But as pq showed,
> it's a straightforward set of shell commands to do it.  And actually, if
> I were doing a conformance check, I wouldn't trust that the COPYING file
> was being kept up to date so would do that scan regardless.  Indeed, if
> there were any descrepancies that showed up I would feel compelled to
> investigate each of them.  IOW rather than saving time the COPYING file
> might actually create an bit of extra work for compliance checker.
> Frankly, the script itself might be more valuable in this regard, so
> maybe that's what should be included in the tree?
>
> If the ultimate goal is to help make compliance checking easier, I would
> suggest focusing on fixing any irregularities in the files themselves -
> e.g. continuing to ensuring dates and copyright formats are correct,
> that boilerplate licensing text is consistent across files, etc., as
> folks have been doing, so that running a scan is clean and reliable.
>
> OTOH, if the goal is about giving recognition to contributors, an
> AUTHORS or CONTRIBUTORS file seems to be more conventionally used
> approaches.

Fair enough. FWIW, that wasn't my goal: if I was after more credit,
I'd probably do it in a way which was visible to more than just distro
maintainers and lawyers. :)

>> I'd be fine to reduce it to the minimal license text, but that doesn't
>> free us up from needing to check incoming source to make sure it
>> conforms to the same license. We should really also merge data/COPYING
>> into the core COPYING.
>
> Obviously checking licenses on incoming code is always extremely
> important. :-)
>
> I'm not sure what you're suggesting by reducing it to the minimal
> license, the file only includes one license statement so appears to be
> minimal already; I'm not suggesting copyrights *shouldn't* be present,
> or that any of the existing ones should be removed.  AIUI it's required
> to have at least one copyright statement, and seems pretty standard to
> list the major copyright holders (esp. any companies/individuals with a
> legal interest.)  The main purpose of COPYING, though, is the licensing,
> to document how the codebase can be shared and reused.
>
> You're probably right that merging data/COPYING and COPYING makes
> sense, but I've seen enough other projects that had subdir-specific
> licensing gunk that I'm not really worried about it.  I'd be fine
> either way.

Yeah, I don't think we're big enough that having separate files makes
much sense. What I'm mostly just stuck with is the copyright
statements: at the moment, we list a few but don't go on to list any
others. I'd suggest an incomplete statement is the worst of both
worlds: should we maybe just list the applicable licenses with a
'Copyright © 2008-2017 multiple authors' and the license text, with a
note to check the individual files to determine who owns copyright
over which part?

Cheers,
Daniel
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 10:17:21PM +0000, Daniel Stone wrote:
> >> I'd be fine to reduce it to the minimal license text, but that doesn't
> >> free us up from needing to check incoming source to make sure it
> >> conforms to the same license. We should really also merge data/COPYING
> >> into the core COPYING.
> >
> > Obviously checking licenses on incoming code is always extremely
> > important. :-)
> >
> > I'm not sure what you're suggesting by reducing it to the minimal
> > license, the file only includes one license statement so appears to be
> > minimal already; I'm not suggesting copyrights *shouldn't* be present,
> > or that any of the existing ones should be removed.  AIUI it's required
> > to have at least one copyright statement, and seems pretty standard to
> > list the major copyright holders (esp. any companies/individuals with a
> > legal interest.)  The main purpose of COPYING, though, is the licensing,
> > to document how the codebase can be shared and reused.
> >
> > You're probably right that merging data/COPYING and COPYING makes
> > sense, but I've seen enough other projects that had subdir-specific
> > licensing gunk that I'm not really worried about it.  I'd be fine
> > either way.
> 
> Yeah, I don't think we're big enough that having separate files makes
> much sense. What I'm mostly just stuck with is the copyright
> statements: at the moment, we list a few but don't go on to list any
> others. I'd suggest an incomplete statement is the worst of both
> worlds: should we maybe just list the applicable licenses with a
> 'Copyright © 2008-2017 multiple authors' and the license text, with a
> note to check the individual files to determine who owns copyright
> over which part?

Yes, that seems like a good approach to me.  That should address all the
points.

I probably would avoid the 'multiple authors' phrasing in the individual
.c files as probably too ambiguous legally, however I've seen plenty of
projects use that in their code.

Bryce
Hi Bryce,

On 1 March 2017 at 00:22, Bryce Harrington <bryce@osg.samsung.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 10:17:21PM +0000, Daniel Stone wrote:
>> Yeah, I don't think we're big enough that having separate files makes
>> much sense. What I'm mostly just stuck with is the copyright
>> statements: at the moment, we list a few but don't go on to list any
>> others. I'd suggest an incomplete statement is the worst of both
>> worlds: should we maybe just list the applicable licenses with a
>> 'Copyright © 2008-2017 multiple authors' and the license text, with a
>> note to check the individual files to determine who owns copyright
>> over which part?
>
> Yes, that seems like a good approach to me.  That should address all the
> points.
>
> I probably would avoid the 'multiple authors' phrasing in the individual
> .c files as probably too ambiguous legally, however I've seen plenty of
> projects use that in their code.

Oh yes, totally: I was only talking about COPYING here, and want to
just leave the individual files as they are.

Cheers,
Daniel