I have just bumped the thread on legal-discuss about this issue. On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Noah Slater <nsla...@tumbolia.org> wrote:
> We can't disavow copyright on files because we don't consider them > creative works. > > What we can do, however, is use a simple persmissive license, like this: > > "Copying and distribution of this file, with or without modification, are > permitted in any medium without royalty provided the copyright notice and > this notice are preserved. This file is offered as-is, without any > warranty." > > I have taken this from here: > > > http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/License-Notices-for-Other-Files.html > > I can follow this up on legal-discuss if people are interested in using > this in our config files. > > For third party files (anything more complex than key, value assignments) > we cannot add our own license header. But we should be making a note of the > author, copyright, and parent project URL in the NOTICE file, as I mention > on another thread. > > On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 8:13 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/ >> > > > > -- > NS > -- NS
