On 10/19/2013 08:29 AM, Sean Dague wrote: > On 10/19/2013 08:22 AM, Monty Taylor wrote: >> >> >> On 10/19/2013 04:52 AM, Clint Byrum wrote: >>> Excerpts from Thomas Goirand's message of 2013-10-18 23:01:50 -0700: >>>> >>>> Hi there, >>>> >>>> TroveClient just got rejected by Debian FTP masters. Reply from Luke >>>> Faraone is below. >>>> >>>> In general, I would strongly advise that a clean COPYRIGHT-HOLDER file >>>> is created with the copyright holders in them. Why? Because it is hard >>>> to distinguish between authors and copyright holders, which are very >>>> distinct things. Listing the authors in debian/copyright doesn't >>>> seem to >>>> satisfy the FTP masters as well... :( >>>> >>>> FYI, my reply was that I knew some of the authors were working for >>>> Rackspace, because I met them in Portland, and that I knew Rackspace >>>> was >>>> one of the copyright holders. Though that's of course not enough for >>>> the >>>> Debian FTP masters. >>>> >>>> Your thoughts? >>> >>> Recently there was a movement to remove the copyright headers from all >>> the files in OpenStack. Some folk disagreed with this movement, and the >>> compromise was that they were discouraged but allowed. >> >> This is not true. >> >> The compromise is that they are not required, and that people would stop >> rejecting patches if they did not include a license header. > > Correction.... > > Would not be rejected if they did not include a *copyright* header. > > License headers are still required (we even added a hacking rule for that). > >> At no point in time, to my knowledge, did we EVER reach an agreement >> that they are actually discouraged. We merely acknowledged that we have >> developer apathy on this point and weren't going to get it right. > > I think the lack of a firm stance here honestly caused more confusion. > I've seen wildly different interpretations on projects because we're in > a giant grey area (as can be seen by the different interpretations on > this list). > > Perhaps it's time to open up that giant can of worms again and try to > get more specific on copyright requirements.... though I'm not sure the > discussion would end up any differently.
I think it might be time to open it up again - and seems like a good test of our new TC's ability to have a discussion on a potentially hairy topic. The fact that it might be causing a demonstrable issue with the distros might be a good data point that did not exist last time. However, even as a strong supporter of accurate license headers, I would like to know more about the FTP masters issue. I dialog with them, as folks who deal with this issue and its repercutions WAY more than any of us might be really nice. Monty _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
