On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Joe Brockmeier <j...@zonker.net> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 21, 2012, at 01:53 PM, Chiradeep Vittal 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 > > If we want to be extra-cautious without putting undue noise in the > configuration files, could we simply put something in the NOTICE file > like this? > > "Configuration files for third-party programs written specifically for > distribution with Apache CloudStack are provided under the Apache > Software License 2.0" > > or > > "Configuration files for third-party programs written specifically for > distribution with Apache CloudStack are not considered to be under > copyright. You may use, modify, and distribute those files without > restriction." > > The second would be my preference as I am of the opinion configuration > files are not expressive works, but data and should not be encumbered by > copyright. Of course, I'm not a lawyer, so my opinion is just that - > opinion - and not legal guidance. (It *does* seem to be the pervasive > view with most FOSS communities, though.) > > Best, > > Joe > -- > Joe Brockmeier > j...@zonker.net > Twitter: @jzb > http://www.dissociatedpress.net/ >
Joe, that's a pretty reasonable approach. I'm not sure which of the two specific options I'd prefer, but I think that we might have to cover it via ASL. Any others have an opinion?
