Thanks Justin. I think Brennan is volunteering to be release manager and get the next one out, as long as we can start a license clearing process and make things a little better (become more Apache-like :) ) each release. Here's what Brennan and I are planning for this weekend:
1. We're going to work on the scheduler module (nuttx/sched/) 2. Some recent changes were made to license headers under that directory. We're going to go back in time to before those changes... 3. Brennan will use Fossology to generate license reports for the files under sched/ 4. I will find the set of C files that only have NuttX committers (who we should have ICLAs from) 5. We will check this set of files manually and against the Fossology report 6. For the files that are BSD license and have authors that are NuttX committers, we'll change the license headers and commit the result to a branch. 7. I will create a PR for this change, and we can use the PR to discuss next steps. 8. Once it's merged, Brennan will work to get the release out. For more info: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NUTTX/License+Clearing Improvements to this are welcomed. cheers adam On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 5:03 PM Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote: > Hi, > > INAL but the copyright notice in the header is just a claim and may not > reflect who actually has copyright. It doesn’t mean that that person or > company owns the copyright on the entire file. With a company it’s usually > easier as employment contracts say the company owns the copyright of works > produced by their workers. With individuals it gets more complex as they > may or may not own the copyright or may be unaware who does. (Worse case > scenario see [1], where an employee was forced to implement an idea he had > outside of work unpaid and had to pay costs) > > Each person who made changes would own copyright (or for their company) > automatically on their work. Especially in this case where I believe the > project had no ICLAs or agreements in place with it contributors about > copyright. If you a more qualified opinion please ask on legal-discuss. > > We know this is currently an issue, so I would you just note that it is in > the work in progress DISCLAIMER for the initial release, so that way people > who use the release are aware of it. Given the licensing terms of the files > it’s not an issue that would stop most people from using the software. > > What Brennan and Adam are suggesting sounds like a good process to me. > Identifying all of the contributors that don’t have ICLA is useful, it’s > also good to has some ideas of the size of their contribution. For large > contributions it would be best to get an ICLA from the individual, this may > be a lot of work, and in some cases it may not be possible. That fine we > can deal with that as needed and this shouldn’t hold up a release or > graduation (as long as progress is being made) and can be done in parallel. > > A release could have been made at any point in the last several months, > the only barriers to not do so that are ones you are putting up for > yourself. A release doesn’t have to be perfect, in fact it doesn’t even > have to work as far as the ASF is concerned. A good goal to aim for it to > make each release better than the last, and release frequently rather than > trying to make a perfect release. > > Thanks, > Justin > > 1. > https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2002-08-05-0208050013-story.html -- Adam Feuer <a...@starcat.io>
