| *** diablo_rojo_phone is now known as Guest10755 | 08:01 | |
| fungi | tc-members: heads up that there's a licensing and copyright related discussion unfolding on openstck's legal-discuss ml, for those of you who are not presently subscribed: https://lists.openstack.org/archives/list/legal-discuss@lists.openstack.org/thread/LJO2WBD3EDQG6HOT25BIIZSIEO7IF5V7 | 14:14 |
|---|---|---|
| gouthamr | fungi: thanks, we can chat about the TC guidance bit during next week's meeting.. do you feel motivated to throw up a resolution detailing what you propose; i.e., specify that we don't require the condensed version of the license on source files, and how to deal with prior copyrights? | 19:35 |
| gouthamr | i am not inclined to change the guidance from the lawyers, IANAL as well, but, i agree we can fill in the gaps so we can avoid project contributors doing the wrong thing.. over the years, we've corrected in code review when someone drops copyright lines or tweaks them, or copies them unwittingly | 19:36 |
| clarkb | in this particular situation I wonder why remove the abbreviated license at all? | 19:37 |
| clarkb | it shouldn't hurt anything (its already there) | 19:37 |
| clarkb | we don't need to save a few kilobytes per repo | 19:38 |
| gouthamr | yeah, misconception i think.. good that they added them back: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/puppet-horizon/+/943232/1..2 | 19:41 |
| fungi | yeah, i did my best to reiterate that including the license notice at the top of every file is very strongly recommended, which technically does mean it's optional but removing it still seems like a bad idea and including it seems like a good idea | 19:41 |
| gmann | maybe it was not a strong intension to remove them, they asked the suggestion and added back. all good now? | 19:42 |
| gouthamr | +1, i think it should be written down so code reviewers don't have to remind folks.. its possible, with our core reviewer churns :) | 19:43 |
| fungi | seems so, it was more a question of whether the tc wanted to amend their licensing guidelines to be more proscriptive about that, or just deal with contributors re-asking periodically | 19:43 |
| gouthamr | +1 i'd support clarifying it | 19:44 |
| gmann | I am just checking we should have that somewhere written | 19:45 |
| fungi | yeah, the most reasonable places i could think of to say so were the legal issues faq in the project teams guide, or the licensing requirements document in governance | 19:48 |
| gmann | we have copyrights header guidelines covered here https://docs.openstack.org/project-team-guide/legal-issues-faq.html#copyright-headers | 19:48 |
| gmann | "Always keep the license in the header." | 19:48 |
| gmann | yeah, these one ^^ | 19:48 |
| gmann | maybe we need to circulate this page/faq more in community if they do not know | 19:49 |
| fungi | true, i linked the faq twice in that ml thread, but could have pointed out that sentence and failed to | 19:50 |
| gmann | yeah, i also did not find it in first look as it is hidden in long text. maybe we can bold it or separate as a heading just for easy finding/reading | 19:51 |
| fungi | that chapter was taken verbatim from a much older wiki article, so maybe it's just time to orgagnize it better and perhaps lead with a tl;dr summary | 19:54 |
| fungi | perhaps also link to it from the licensing requirements page in governance | 19:54 |
| fungi | i can work on those | 20:01 |
| gmann | ++, thanks. will be happy to review once up. | 20:01 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.17.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!