On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Chiradeep Vittal <chiradeep.vit...@citrix.com> wrote: > There is a long list of blocker bugs [1] regarding the configuration files > checked in to the repository. Some of the bugs ask that the Apache License > header be inserted into the config file if it is indeed resolved as "written > specifically for CloudStack". > > My question is whether this is necessary — > > 1. Almost all configuration files in the universe do not have a license > header, this seems to break convention > 2. It may make it harder to compare CloudStack configurations with "stock" > configuration files > > [1] http://s.apache.org/Xwc<http://s.apache.org/XWc> > >
Since I wrote that description in the bug, here's what I was thinking (and this assumes that we are specifically talking about files that were created for CloudStack, and were not sourced from some other project): IMO, if the file has any script lines or significant comments, it should have the ASF license header. Script and comments are "creative" content, and therefore would be covered by the ASLv2. Thinking about the issues that we've had figuring out the legal implications of including these files in our release, I would actually see it as a service to future developers that might want to use these files as a starting point for something else. Putting the header in place makes it crystal clear what terms cover the files. On the other hand, if the file is only key-value pairs (non-creative configuration content), then perhaps we don't worry about it at all (i.e.: keep it in our license header excluded list). Again, these thoughts are purely my opinion. We do need to come to a consensus though... -chip
