Sorry, just to cite that: http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/maintain.html
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Noah Slater <nsla...@tumbolia.org> wrote: > Sorry to be the voice of descent here, but I don't think 1C is viable. > (Without knowing more specifics about what we're talking about here.) > > Copyright law does not concern itself with distinctions like "executable > code vs config file". Copyright concerns itself with *creative works*. So > if the config file is large enough to be deemed a creative work, then > copyright applies. > > Now, from my work with the FSF, I remember this rule of thumb: > > If a person contributes more than around 15 lines of code and/or text that >> is legally significant for copyright purposes, we need copyright papers for >> that contribution, as described above. > > > > A change of just a few lines (less than 15 or so) is not legally >> significant for copyright. A regular series of repeated changes, such as >> renaming a symbol, is not legally significant even if the symbol has to be >> renamed in many places. Keep in mind, however, that a series of minor >> changes by the same person can add up to a significant contribution. What >> counts is the total contribution of the person; it is irrelevant which >> parts of it were contributed when. > > > We can be fairly certain this was vetted by the FSF's legal council. I do > not think that the ASF has something similar to this, but I think it is > sound advice non-the-less. > > I do not believe we have the right to assume something is not a creative > work just because we class it as "configuration". (It could be argued that > a simple Rails app is just "configuration" for instance. Heh, heh, heh.) > > Where do these config files come from? > > Where are they located? > > What do we want to do with them? > > How many are there? > > (Feel free to point me to mailing list threads, if these have already been > answered.) > > On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 8:55 AM, Wido den Hollander <w...@widodh.nl>wrote: > >> On 09/12/2012 09:42 PM, Chip Childers wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> (Looking for mentor guidance here as well please!) >>> >>> On this topic, we need to come together as a community to figure out >>> how we want to proceed with these configuration files. It doesn't >>> seem like we are going to get a definitive answer on legal-discuss@a.o >>> without asking about a specific file from a specific source. There >>> HAS been a little discussion about the ability of a configuration file >>> to be copyright on the legal list, but it didn't go much further than >>> a couple of emails. >>> >>> As far as I can tell, we have some options: >>> >>> 1 - Do a file by file audit to confirm the source and if there is any >>> claim of copyright on those files, and then either: >>> 1.A - Ask the source project if they would consider granting a >>> different license for just that config file. >>> 1.B - Ask legal-discuss@a.o for specific exemptions >>> 1.C - Do nothing, because the file isn't something that a copyright is >>> claimed on (and we wouldn't claim a copyright either) >>> >> >> I'd go for 1C >> >> Wido >> >> >> 1.D - Spec out the requirements, and have someone attempt a clean-room >>> implementation (I think that I could find someone if it gets to this) >>> 2 - Follow up on the concept of configuration files not being >>> protected by copyright, and ask for a ruling from legal-discuss on >>> that idea. >>> >>> There may be other options that I'm missing. I'm looking for opinions >>> and suggestions for how to move forward, since this is absolutely one >>> of the blocker issues for a 4.0 release. Thoughts? >>> >>> -chip >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Chip Childers <chip.child...@sungard.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Chiradeep, >>>> >>>> Would you mind putting together the specific example data being >>>> requested by Daniel [1] on legal-discuss@a.o in response to the legal >>>> Jira that you raised [2]? >>>> >>>> The legal thread includes some discussion on the possibility of config >>>> files even being something that could enjoy license protection, but we >>>> should probably plan on dealing with the potential provenance issues >>>> anyway. >>>> >>>> -chip >>>> >>>> [1] - >>>> http://markmail.org/message/**p6kxbvzybyu552p2<http://markmail.org/message/p6kxbvzybyu552p2> >>>> [2] - >>>> https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/LEGAL-146<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-146> >>>> >>> >> > > > -- > NS > -- NS
