[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/libusbhp: ChangeLog Manifest libusbhp-1.0.2.ebuild metadata.xml

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/libusbhp: ChangeLog Manifest libusbhp-1.0.2.ebuild metadata.xml

[Mike Frysinger]

On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 12:21 AM, Patrick Lauer (patrick)
<patrick@gentoo.org> wrote:
> patrick     14/12/31 05:21:11
>
>   Removed:              ChangeLog Manifest libusbhp-1.0.2.ebuild
>                         metadata.xml
>   Log:
>   QA: Remove package with invalid copyright

you do not go reverting code without actually talking to people.  if
you feel like a revert is necessary, then file a bug.  putting a "QA"
tag at the start of the commit message doesn't give you a pass.
-mike

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/libusbhp: ChangeLog Manifest libusbhp-1.0.2.ebuild metadata.xml

[Alec Warner]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 798 bytes --]

On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 8:05 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 12:21 AM, Patrick Lauer (patrick)
> <patrick@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > patrick     14/12/31 05:21:11
> >
> >   Removed:              ChangeLog Manifest libusbhp-1.0.2.ebuild
> >                         metadata.xml
> >   Log:
> >   QA: Remove package with invalid copyright
>
> you do not go reverting code without actually talking to people.  if
> you feel like a revert is necessary, then file a bug.  putting a "QA"
> tag at the start of the commit message doesn't give you a pass.
>

Normally I'd side with you on this...but I'm fairly sure repoman doesn't
let you commit packages to the tree missing these headers. This leads me to
believe you didn't use repoman, or ignored it?

-A

-mike
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1656 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/libusbhp: ChangeLog Manifest libusbhp-1.0.2.ebuild metadata.xml

[Mike Frysinger]

On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 1:16 AM, Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 8:05 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 12:21 AM, Patrick Lauer (patrick)
>> <patrick@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> > patrick     14/12/31 05:21:11
>> >
>> >   Removed:              ChangeLog Manifest libusbhp-1.0.2.ebuild
>> >                         metadata.xml
>> >   Log:
>> >   QA: Remove package with invalid copyright
>>
>> you do not go reverting code without actually talking to people.  if
>> you feel like a revert is necessary, then file a bug.  putting a "QA"
>> tag at the start of the commit message doesn't give you a pass.
>
> Normally I'd side with you on this...but I'm fairly sure repoman doesn't let
> you commit packages to the tree missing these headers. This leads me to
> believe you didn't use repoman, or ignored it?

feel free to grab the code i originally committed and run `repoman
full` yourself.  no fatal errors.  in fact you can see the generated
tags in my commit message.

even then, deleting an ebuild purely due to different copyright is
complete bs.  anyone who understands copyright knows the situation in
Gentoo is completely unenforceable.  we have no CLA.  this was
patrick/QA wasting people's time to check a meaningless box.
-mike

Re: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/libusbhp: ChangeLog Manifest libusbhp-1.0.2.ebuild metadata.xml

[Andreas K. Huettel]

> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 1:16 AM, Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org> wrote:

> even then, deleting an ebuild purely due to different copyright is
> complete bs. 

No. Tree policy.

-- 
Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer
perl, office, comrel, council

Re: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/libusbhp: ChangeLog Manifest libusbhp-1.0.2.ebuild metadata.xml

[Andreas K. Huettel]

Am Montag 16 Februar 2015, 06:13:10 schrieb Mike Frysinger:

> even then, deleting an ebuild purely due to different copyright is
> complete bs.

The requirement for Gentoo copyright in the main tree is not optional, but has 
been policy for a very long time.

Just because you've been around forever doesnt mean you can break the rules 
that everyone else is supposed to follow.

-- 
Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer
perl, office, comrel, council

Re: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/libusbhp: ChangeLog Manifest libusbhp-1.0.2.ebuild metadata.xml

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1069 bytes --]

On 16 Feb 2015 12:31, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> Am Montag 16 Februar 2015, 06:13:10 schrieb Mike Frysinger:
> > even then, deleting an ebuild purely due to different copyright is
> > complete bs.
> 
> The requirement for Gentoo copyright in the main tree is not optional, but has 
> been policy for a very long time.

where exactly did i say i intended for it to stay that way ?  i was syncing 
multiple things that day from CrOS and one update i missed the pointless munging 
of the header.  had Patrick done the reasonable thing (actually talking to me), 
i could have fixed it fairly quickly.

but lets be clear here to illustrate the inane behavior you're attempting to 
justify.  the policy is not "it must be Gentoo copyright", but "it must have a 
header that says Gentoo copyright even though there's no legal basis for it".

> Just because you've been around forever doesnt mean you can break the rules 
> that everyone else is supposed to follow.

cut the crap.  trying to put words into my mouth doesn't stop making them yours.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/libusbhp: ChangeLog Manifest libusbhp-1.0.2.ebuild metadata.xml

[Patrick Lauer]

On Monday 16 February 2015 06:13:10 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 1:16 AM, Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 8:05 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >> On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 12:21 AM, Patrick Lauer (patrick)
> >> 
> >> <patrick@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >> > patrick     14/12/31 05:21:11
> >> > 
> >> >   Removed:              ChangeLog Manifest libusbhp-1.0.2.ebuild
> >> >   
> >> >                         metadata.xml
> >> >   
> >> >   Log:
> >> >   QA: Remove package with invalid copyright
> >> 
> >> you do not go reverting code without actually talking to people.  if
> >> you feel like a revert is necessary, then file a bug.  putting a "QA"
> >> tag at the start of the commit message doesn't give you a pass.
> > 
> > Normally I'd side with you on this...but I'm fairly sure repoman doesn't
> > let you commit packages to the tree missing these headers. This leads me
> > to believe you didn't use repoman, or ignored it?
> 
> feel free to grab the code i originally committed and run `repoman
> full` yourself.  no fatal errors.  in fact you can see the generated
> tags in my commit message.

Well, AutoRepoman triggered on it.

Testing for fun on a random ebuild:

RepoMan scours the neighborhood...
  ebuild.badheader              1
   dev-db/hyperdex/hyperdex-1.6.0-r1.ebuild: Invalid Gentoo Copyright on line: 
1


Which again leads me to the question:

Why are these checks not properly fatal?

(And I really do not like having to repeat myself ...)

> 
> even then, deleting an ebuild purely due to different copyright is
> complete bs.  anyone who understands copyright knows the situation in
> Gentoo is completely unenforceable.  we have no CLA.  this was
> patrick/QA wasting people's time to check a meaningless box.
> -mike

As others have pointed out, policy is policy. Don't shoot the massager.

Since I can't just fix the copyright (that would be more wrong) I opted for the 
easy way out - remove offending bits.


Have fun,

Patrick

Re: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/libusbhp: ChangeLog Manifest libusbhp-1.0.2.ebuild metadata.xml

[Rich Freeman]

On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 6:31 AM, Andreas K. Huettel
<dilfridge@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Am Montag 16 Februar 2015, 06:13:10 schrieb Mike Frysinger:
>
>> even then, deleting an ebuild purely due to different copyright is
>> complete bs.
>
> The requirement for Gentoo copyright in the main tree is not optional, but has
> been policy for a very long time.
>
> Just because you've been around forever doesnt mean you can break the rules
> that everyone else is supposed to follow.
>

++

I'm all for working things out, but this is really non-negotiable at
the moment since copyright is legally messy.  Patrick couldn't just
change the copyright line, and since this is a new package the impact
of removing it is least felt if it is done right away.  It can
certainly be re-introduced with the correct copyright line, assuming
it can be legally contributed in this manner (the responsibility of
the committer to verify, DCO or not).

I think there are benefits if we loosen the policy, but the best I
could come up with for making that possible was quite messy with the
need to keep track of who contributed what and who assigned copyright
on what and all that stuff.

One dev contributes an ebuild which is copyright Microsoft GPL-2.  I
modify 10 lines in it and copyright those Richard Freeman and
copyright it GPL-2+.  What goes on the copyright line now, and at what
point have enough contributions accumulated to allow it to move to
GPL-3 if we decide to do that with the whole tree, and remove the MS
name since they haven't done anything with it in eons?

The draft policy addressed this, but feedback was that it was going to
be painful to keep track of who did what, and I can't argue with that.
Git blame combined with a tool and database of who has signed an FLA
would help a great deal here.  The policy itself didn't actually get
much argument beyond that, so maybe creating such a tool might be all
that is needed to make the switch.

For those who haven't read it, my latest drafts:

http://dev.gentoo.org/~rich0/copyrightpolicy.xml

But, until this becomes actual policy, the current policy stands,
whether repoman flags it or not.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/libusbhp: ChangeLog Manifest libusbhp-1.0.2.ebuild metadata.xml

[Markos Chandras]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 02/16/15 13:31, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> Am Montag 16 Februar 2015, 06:13:10 schrieb Mike Frysinger:
> 
>> even then, deleting an ebuild purely due to different copyright
>> is complete bs.
> 
> The requirement for Gentoo copyright in the main tree is not
> optional, but has been policy for a very long time.
> 
> Just because you've been around forever doesnt mean you can break
> the rules that everyone else is supposed to follow.
> 

I too believe that if you are reverting someone's commit you should at
least drop him an email to let him know. How else do you expect him to
know he did something wrong? I am a bit worried QA is taking such
actions without communicating that with the developer. If you don't
let people know they do mistakes, it's likely they will do them again.

- -- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
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=YU+G
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/libusbhp: ChangeLog Manifest libusbhp-1.0.2.ebuild metadata.xml

[Pacho Ramos]

El lun, 16-02-2015 a las 06:39 -0500, Mike Frysinger escribió:
[...]

Anyway, wouldn't have been much more useful for all to spend the effort
used in remove the package on simply fixing the header? :/

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/libusbhp: ChangeLog Manifest libusbhp-1.0.2.ebuild metadata.xml

[Kristian Fiskerstrand]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 02/16/2015 12:44 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> 
> 
> I too believe that if you are reverting someone's commit you should
> at least drop him an email to let him know. How else do you expect
> him to know he did something wrong? I am a bit worried QA is taking
> such actions without communicating that with the developer. If you
> don't let people know they do mistakes, it's likely they will do
> them again.
> 

I very much agree with this statement

- -- 
Kristian Fiskerstrand
Public PGP key 0xE3EDFAE3 at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net
fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJU4douAAoJEP7VAChXwav6zwYIAMQfuYsqT+bZNXkW0ngqIniA
0qi68xlzkmOj+ZKucMkAq71ISOFS/cd+5lfJJYfpfdaCQifIcWF2unUKsrG/mBS6
WUhR00rYA8LbIyfBqEkXo0PgiGjAF04lqp3EZwCn9nEQgNNSUb213r/Wyh/pQ7e6
ohvcRKH+zAiHUPdJ+bo5rRIPDO5m+Y2HY/7XouTLkvru0c7KHupQ8BBVG+1uYTqe
A72rEEyPJJXKSwj1w5zPwgLLOFkugWyo6YUZdEoJ/+n39VFdLRVdaIkK+VgeMzBV
QG2qnGSGKRHX8SDXWI+5k3NMCtSCrIJLlhzmH9QkPI+NY319AbDFHJzYglhZTHk=
=WHOc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/libusbhp: ChangeLog Manifest libusbhp-1.0.2.ebuild metadata.xml

[Pacho Ramos]

El lun, 16-02-2015 a las 12:46 +0100, Pacho Ramos escribió:
> El lun, 16-02-2015 a las 06:39 -0500, Mike Frysinger escribió:
> [...]
> 
> Anyway, wouldn't have been much more useful for all to spend the effort
> used in remove the package on simply fixing the header? :/
> 
> 

Ah, ok, I guess it's because of the "All rights reserved"
http://sources.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/dev-libs/libusbhp/libusbhp-1.0.2.ebuild?revision=1.1

In that case I agree removing the ebuild was the safest approach (even
if a mail or a bug would have being nice to notify the committed about
that error)

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/libusbhp: ChangeLog Manifest libusbhp-1.0.2.ebuild metadata.xml

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1061 bytes --]

On 16 Feb 2015 19:43, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On Monday 16 February 2015 06:13:10 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > even then, deleting an ebuild purely due to different copyright is
> > complete bs.  anyone who understands copyright knows the situation in
> > Gentoo is completely unenforceable.  we have no CLA.  this was
> > patrick/QA wasting people's time to check a meaningless box.
> 
> As others have pointed out, policy is policy. Don't shoot the massager.

again, that's bs.  nowhere does the policy state "silently delete things without 
talking to anyone", nor does it state "ignore common sense, blindly follow the 
rules, and act how your think the policy states".  nothing here was cause for 
alarm that could possibly have warranted straight up deletion.

> Since I can't just fix the copyright (that would be more wrong)

considering how copyright *actually* works for us, this statement is fairly 
ludicrous.

> I opted for the easy way out - remove offending bits.

sorry, but you did it wrong.  please don't do it again.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/libusbhp: ChangeLog Manifest libusbhp-1.0.2.ebuild metadata.xml

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 895 bytes --]

On 16 Feb 2015 12:53, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> El lun, 16-02-2015 a las 12:46 +0100, Pacho Ramos escribió:
> > El lun, 16-02-2015 a las 06:39 -0500, Mike Frysinger escribió:
> > [...]
> > 
> > Anyway, wouldn't have been much more useful for all to spend the effort
> > used in remove the package on simply fixing the header? :/
> 
> Ah, ok, I guess it's because of the "All rights reserved"
> http://sources.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/dev-libs/libusbhp/libusbhp-1.0.2.ebuild?revision=1.1
> 
> In that case I agree removing the ebuild was the safest approach (even
> if a mail or a bug would have being nice to notify the committed about
> that error)

except for two things:
 * that phrase is meaningless (legally speaking) and has been for a century [1]
 * the header explicitly stated GPL-2 license
-mike

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_rights_reserved

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/libusbhp: ChangeLog Manifest libusbhp-1.0.2.ebuild metadata.xml

[Rich Freeman]

On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 6:46 AM, Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org> wrote:
> El lun, 16-02-2015 a las 06:39 -0500, Mike Frysinger escribió:
> [...]
>
> Anyway, wouldn't have been much more useful for all to spend the effort
> used in remove the package on simply fixing the header? :/
>

Yeah, let's not bring up the last time somebody tried to do that
without any intention of malice that I could detect.  The complaints
were fairly "euthusiastic."

For other kinds of issues I agree that being less invasive is better.

I do agree that providing notice to the dev when making QA actions of
any kind should be standard practice, as brought up by Markos.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/libusbhp: ChangeLog Manifest libusbhp-1.0.2.ebuild metadata.xml

[Markos Chandras]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 02/16/15 13:53, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> On 02/16/2015 12:44 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> 
> 
>> I too believe that if you are reverting someone's commit you
>> should at least drop him an email to let him know. How else do
>> you expect him to know he did something wrong? I am a bit worried
>> QA is taking such actions without communicating that with the
>> developer. If you don't let people know they do mistakes, it's
>> likely they will do them again.
> 
> 
> I very much agree with this statement
> 
> 

https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Quality_Assurance/Policies#Communication_When_Making_Fixes

So QA has a policy for that and it was not followed... I am sorry but
I think Mike is right complaining about the lack of communication.

- -- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
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=C9Tp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: Re: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/libusbhp: ChangeLog Manifest libusbhp-1.0.2.ebuild metadata.xml

[Andreas K. Huettel]

Am Montag 16 Februar 2015, 07:03:18 schrieb Mike Frysinger:
> except for two things:
>  * that phrase is meaningless (legally speaking) and has been for a century
> [1] * the header explicitly stated GPL-2 license

So you want to change a longstanding policy rule. Right. How about doing this 
like everyone else and starting a discussion about it? You know, like, talking 
to people?

Just silently committing stuff that goes against standing rules because you 
disagree with the rules is not the way to go. It's childish and immature. 
(Remember the ChangeLogs?)

-- 
Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer
perl, office, comrel, council

Re: Re: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/libusbhp: ChangeLog Manifest libusbhp-1.0.2.ebuild metadata.xml

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 607 bytes --]

On 16 Feb 2015 13:12, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> Am Montag 16 Februar 2015, 07:03:18 schrieb Mike Frysinger:
> > except for two things:
> >  * that phrase is meaningless (legally speaking) and has been for a century
> > [1] * the header explicitly stated GPL-2 license
> 
> So you want to change a longstanding policy rule. Right. How about doing this 
> like everyone else and starting a discussion about it? You know, like, talking 
> to people?

again, stop trying to put your words in my mouth and read my other replies.  
your perception of events & intentions is completely wrong.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/libusbhp: ChangeLog Manifest libusbhp-1.0.2.ebuild metadata.xml

[Joshua Kinard]

On 02/16/2015 07:12, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> Am Montag 16 Februar 2015, 07:03:18 schrieb Mike Frysinger:
>> except for two things:
>>  * that phrase is meaningless (legally speaking) and has been for a century
>> [1] * the header explicitly stated GPL-2 license
> 
> So you want to change a longstanding policy rule. Right. How about doing this 
> like everyone else and starting a discussion about it? You know, like, talking 
> to people?
> 
> Just silently committing stuff that goes against standing rules because you 
> disagree with the rules is not the way to go. It's childish and immature. 
> (Remember the ChangeLogs?)

Mike stated he made a mistake while making (what I assume to be) multiple
changes across a variety of packages.  I don't get a sense that he had an
intentional desire to break the rules here, so let's not go pointing fingers
until we know otherwise.  We're human, and humans make mistakes sometimes.  If
anyone here is not human....well, then we have a whole different set of
problems to discuss.

As far as removing the ebuild goes, that was probably the correct course of
action, because we Yanks love to make our legal code as bizzaringly complex as
we think we can.  Though, the mistaken code is still in CVS in the Attic --
does that itself present any problems that need to be addressed?

That stated, communication is key and that was one of the parts that appears to
have been missed in this instance.  We don't have to like each other, but we do
need to learn to work around our differences and disagreements for the good of
the project.  So, lets learn something from this and move along.

-- 
Joshua Kinard
Gentoo/MIPS
kumba@gentoo.org
4096R/D25D95E3 2011-03-28

"The past tempts us, the present confuses us, the future frightens us.  And our
lives slip away, moment by moment, lost in that vast, terrible in-between."

--Emperor Turhan, Centauri Republic

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/libusbhp: ChangeLog Manifest libusbhp-1.0.2.ebuild metadata.xml

[Rich Freeman]

On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 7:44 AM, Joshua Kinard <kumba@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> As far as removing the ebuild goes, that was probably the correct course of
> action, because we Yanks love to make our legal code as bizzaringly complex as
> we think we can.  Though, the mistaken code is still in CVS in the Attic --
> does that itself present any problems that need to be addressed?
>

So, there are a bunch of issues here, but let's just address whether
the copyright line was a problem and set aside all the
personal/organizational/procedural stuff:

1.  We have a clear policy that the copyright line must be exactly
foo, and this one wasn't.
2.  MAYBE violating that policy could or couldn't cause an issue, but
the legalities of that become really messy really fast, so it is
better to just follow the policy until it is changed.
3.  I don't really see a problem with having the file in the Attic
unless somebody asks us to take it down.  The file is legally
redistributable, after all.

A few of the issues I see with having the file in the tree unmodified:
1.  It is GPL-2, not GPL-2+, which could create issues with
relicensing if we wanted to.  If copyright were assigned to the
Foundation there would not be an issue with that.  Yes, I realize that
the current policy is at best ambiguous on that front.  However, we're
not doing ourselves any favors by switching from an ambiguous but
potentially advantageous approach to an unambiguous but
disadvantageous approach.
2.  It opens the door to lots of other situations like this in the
absence of any sane policy for dealing with them.

The current policy requires committers to ensure that it is legal to
put in the copyright line as the policy dictates, and to keep stuff
out of the tree if not.  It isn't a great policy, but it is at least
workable and obviously being the status quo it is what it is.

I do think that moving to a cleaner policy makes a lot of sense.  The
problem is that doing this sort of thing right potentially involves a
lot of work as well.  Maybe another approach is to just ditch per-file
copyrights entirely (which a random perusal suggests is how Linux does
things), but that would STILL require stripping the copyright out of
these files with all the issues that entails, and limit our ability to
borrow license-compatible code.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/libusbhp: ChangeLog Manifest libusbhp-1.0.2.ebuild metadata.xml

[Joshua Kinard]

On 02/16/2015 09:04, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 7:44 AM, Joshua Kinard <kumba@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>
>> As far as removing the ebuild goes, that was probably the correct course of
>> action, because we Yanks love to make our legal code as bizzaringly complex as
>> we think we can.  Though, the mistaken code is still in CVS in the Attic --
>> does that itself present any problems that need to be addressed?
>>
> 
> So, there are a bunch of issues here, but let's just address whether
> the copyright line was a problem and set aside all the
> personal/organizational/procedural stuff:
> 
> 1.  We have a clear policy that the copyright line must be exactly
> foo, and this one wasn't.
> 2.  MAYBE violating that policy could or couldn't cause an issue, but
> the legalities of that become really messy really fast, so it is
> better to just follow the policy until it is changed.
> 3.  I don't really see a problem with having the file in the Attic
> unless somebody asks us to take it down.  The file is legally
> redistributable, after all.
> 
> A few of the issues I see with having the file in the tree unmodified:
> 1.  It is GPL-2, not GPL-2+, which could create issues with
> relicensing if we wanted to.  If copyright were assigned to the
> Foundation there would not be an issue with that.  Yes, I realize that
> the current policy is at best ambiguous on that front.  However, we're
> not doing ourselves any favors by switching from an ambiguous but
> potentially advantageous approach to an unambiguous but
> disadvantageous approach.
> 2.  It opens the door to lots of other situations like this in the
> absence of any sane policy for dealing with them.
> 
> The current policy requires committers to ensure that it is legal to
> put in the copyright line as the policy dictates, and to keep stuff
> out of the tree if not.  It isn't a great policy, but it is at least
> workable and obviously being the status quo it is what it is.
> 
> I do think that moving to a cleaner policy makes a lot of sense.  The
> problem is that doing this sort of thing right potentially involves a
> lot of work as well.  Maybe another approach is to just ditch per-file
> copyrights entirely (which a random perusal suggests is how Linux does
> things), but that would STILL require stripping the copyright out of
> these files with all the issues that entails, and limit our ability to
> borrow license-compatible code.

Focusing on the last paragraph here (but not snipping), my understanding is the
kernel retains per-file copyrights.  This is why the kernel is permanently
wedded to GPLv2, because some of the contributors owning those copyrights have
died and thus can no longer consent to changing to the GPLv3 (or any other OSI
license, or copyright change).  Trying to track down their appropriate heirs,
explain the whole situation, and then seek a consent would be a near-impossible
undertaking.  Hence, permanent GPLv2.

-- 
Joshua Kinard
Gentoo/MIPS
kumba@gentoo.org
4096R/D25D95E3 2011-03-28

"The past tempts us, the present confuses us, the future frightens us.  And our
lives slip away, moment by moment, lost in that vast, terrible in-between."

--Emperor Turhan, Centauri Republic

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/libusbhp: ChangeLog Manifest libusbhp-1.0.2.ebuild metadata.xml

[Luca Barbato]

On 16/02/15 12:58, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On 16 Feb 2015 19:43, Patrick Lauer wrote:
>> On Monday 16 February 2015 06:13:10 Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>> even then, deleting an ebuild purely due to different copyright is
>>> complete bs.  anyone who understands copyright knows the situation in
>>> Gentoo is completely unenforceable.  we have no CLA.  this was
>>> patrick/QA wasting people's time to check a meaningless box.
>>
>> As others have pointed out, policy is policy. Don't shoot the massager.
>
> again, that's bs.  nowhere does the policy state "silently delete things without
> talking to anyone", nor does it state "ignore common sense, blindly follow the
> rules, and act how your think the policy states".  nothing here was cause for
> alarm that could possibly have warranted straight up deletion.
>
>> Since I can't just fix the copyright (that would be more wrong)
>
> considering how copyright *actually* works for us, this statement is fairly
> ludicrous.
>
>> I opted for the easy way out - remove offending bits.
>
> sorry, but you did it wrong.  please don't do it again.
> -mike
>

Can we just have repoman directly fix the entry automatically since in 
itself is nearly-pointless?

Another option is remove that header and just state that all the .ebuild 
are under $license in a simpler way...


lu

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/libusbhp: ChangeLog Manifest libusbhp-1.0.2.ebuild metadata.xml

[Rich Freeman]

On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 11:02 AM, Joshua Kinard <kumba@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 02/16/2015 09:04, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> I do think that moving to a cleaner policy makes a lot of sense.  The
>> problem is that doing this sort of thing right potentially involves a
>> lot of work as well.  Maybe another approach is to just ditch per-file
>> copyrights entirely (which a random perusal suggests is how Linux does
>> things), but that would STILL require stripping the copyright out of
>> these files with all the issues that entails, and limit our ability to
>> borrow license-compatible code.
>
> Focusing on the last paragraph here (but not snipping), my understanding is the
> kernel retains per-file copyrights.  This is why the kernel is permanently
> wedded to GPLv2, because some of the contributors owning those copyrights have
> died and thus can no longer consent to changing to the GPLv3 (or any other OSI
> license, or copyright change).  Trying to track down their appropriate heirs,
> explain the whole situation, and then seek a consent would be a near-impossible
> undertaking.  Hence, permanent GPLv2.

Perhaps I should have worded that better.

s/per-file copyrights/per-file copyright notices/

Obviously the content of individual files will always be copyrighted
absent a release into the public domain.  The Linux kernel just
doesn't stick notices on individual files that attempt to identify who
owns the copyright on what.  Presumably that also means that if they
borrow a file from somewhere else they don't care to change the
copyright notice that was already there (or somehow they manage to
avoid the euthusiasm stirred up by removing said notices).

--
Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/libusbhp: ChangeLog Manifest libusbhp-1.0.2.ebuild metadata.xml

[Rich Freeman]

On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Luca Barbato <lu_zero@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> Can we just have repoman directly fix the entry automatically since in
> itself is nearly-pointless?
>

That would leave the door open to somebody arguing that the line was
changed without their knowledge.  Absent some kind of DCO that seems
even more legally problematic than the current state, which I
wholeheartedly agree isn't ideal.  You can at least make an argument
that in sticking that header line on their file people are implicitly
assigning copyright in jurisdictions that recognize this.  Whether
that argument would hold up in court is difficult to say.

> Another option is remove that header and just state that all the .ebuild are
> under $license in a simpler way...
>

As I said in my other email, that might be a simpler way to go.  Of
course, does that make it acceptable to strip the copyright notice if
it is already there?  It seems like this caused a huge stir the last
time the topic came up, which makes it possible that we end up with
all kinds of random notices in random files which may or may not
reflect the actual copyright status of the tree at the moment.  The
topic that originally raised this issue was the importing of files
that already had copyright notices into a Gentoo repository, and the
question of what to do with them.

-- 
Rich

Re: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/libusbhp: ChangeLog Manifest libusbhp-1.0.2.ebuild metadata.xml

[Andreas K. Huettel]

Am Montag 16 Februar 2015, 13:05:54 schrieb Rich Freeman:
> > Another option is remove that header and just state that all the .ebuild
> > are under $license in a simpler way...
> 
> As I said in my other email, that might be a simpler way to go.  Of
> course, does that make it acceptable to strip the copyright notice if
> it is already there?  It seems like this caused a huge stir the last
> time the topic came up, which makes it possible that we end up with
> all kinds of random notices in random files which may or may not
> reflect the actual copyright status of the tree at the moment.  The
> topic that originally raised this issue was the importing of files
> that already had copyright notices into a Gentoo repository, and the
> question of what to do with them.

I'm all for writing down new rules to simplify this, since the current state 
*is* kinda ugly. So here's a simple question:

If a file is released under the correct license (which we could require, e.g. 
as a first line comment / license statement, similar to today's header), why 
is the copyright owner or the copyright statement even relevant?

Can't we just only require the correct license statement and leave all 
copyright statements as they are in whatever form?

(I mean, committing from Germany where only *natural* persons can be entitled 
to copyright, this is silly anyway...)

-- 
Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer
perl, office, comrel, council

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/libusbhp: ChangeLog Manifest libusbhp-1.0.2.ebuild metadata.xml

[Alec Warner]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1564 bytes --]

On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 3:13 AM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 1:16 AM, Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 8:05 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
> >> On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 12:21 AM, Patrick Lauer (patrick)
> >> <patrick@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >> > patrick     14/12/31 05:21:11
> >> >
> >> >   Removed:              ChangeLog Manifest libusbhp-1.0.2.ebuild
> >> >                         metadata.xml
> >> >   Log:
> >> >   QA: Remove package with invalid copyright
> >>
> >> you do not go reverting code without actually talking to people.  if
> >> you feel like a revert is necessary, then file a bug.  putting a "QA"
> >> tag at the start of the commit message doesn't give you a pass.
> >
> > Normally I'd side with you on this...but I'm fairly sure repoman doesn't
> let
> > you commit packages to the tree missing these headers. This leads me to
> > believe you didn't use repoman, or ignored it?
>
> feel free to grab the code i originally committed and run `repoman
> full` yourself.  no fatal errors.  in fact you can see the generated
> tags in my commit message.
>

Seems like a bug worth fixing then.


>
> even then, deleting an ebuild purely due to different copyright is
> complete bs.  anyone who understands copyright knows the situation in
> Gentoo is completely unenforceable.  we have no CLA.  this was
> patrick/QA wasting people's time to check a meaningless box.
>

Well we agree there, although I doubt anyone will bother fixing it ;)

-A


> -mike
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2732 bytes --]

Re: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/libusbhp: ChangeLog Manifest libusbhp-1.0.2.ebuild metadata.xml

[Rich Freeman]

On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 1:32 PM, Andreas K. Huettel
<dilfridge@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> Can't we just only require the correct license statement and leave all
> copyright statements as they are in whatever form?
>

Obviously appealing for its simplicity.  But, I can see some issues:

1.  What if you want to import multiple code snippets with different
copyright notices into the same file?
2.  Do we want to retain the option to sue somebody who steals GPL
code and uses it contrary to the license?  Will inaccurate or absent
notices hinder that?
3.  What if I as an author want to add myself to the copyright line?
When can I do that?
4.  What if we borrow a small bit of code from some company, it ends
up having the only copyright notice in the entire file, and then they
use that as justification for using the entirety of the file (mostly
Gentoo work) in a proprietary-licensed work?
5.  If we start to accumulate conflicting copyright notices, can we
ever trim some out?

One of the goals of the policy I drafted was to have somewhat clear
rules about what goes on the copyright line, and nobody would ever
have their names taken off of it unless their contribution ended up
not being in the top 50% or whatever.

I was thinking about this and wondering if an automated tool could
parse git author headers and auto-generate an up-to-date attribution.
For this to work every commit would need to have correct author
attribution (so if you borrow FooCo code, you do it in a commit that
has an Author: FooCo header and not your own name - signed-off-by
would still be yourself).  Basically do a git blame, determine author
for each line,  substituted Gentoo for any authors which are on record
as signing an FLA, word count those, then sort descending and
accumulate authors until 50% of the lines in the file are accounted
for.  Sounds like a nice little project.  I think the kernel actually
attributes authors correctly - I might try running it on their
repository.  The migrated Gentoo repositories should also work.

Something like that could even go into repoman.  I think the
auto-changing of the copyright notice isn't such a bad thing if it is
on the basis of authors recorded by individual committers who are
signing DCOs confirming this data is correct.  The copyright notice is
basically just a summary of the more complete data in the repo.

-- 
Rich

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/libusbhp: ChangeLog Manifest libusbhp-1.0.2.ebuild metadata.xml

[hasufell]

On 12/31/2014 06:21 AM, Patrick Lauer (patrick) wrote:
> patrick     14/12/31 05:21:11
> 
>   Removed:              ChangeLog Manifest libusbhp-1.0.2.ebuild
>                         metadata.xml
>   Log:
>   QA: Remove package with invalid copyright
> 

Both people made an excellent point for enforcing peer-reviews (that
includes vapier), because both commits were wrong.

But then again I am pretty sure that both developers involved will be
the last ones asking anyone for review.

Have fun.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/libusbhp: ChangeLog Manifest libusbhp-1.0.2.ebuild metadata.xml

[Joshua Kinard]

On 02/16/2015 13:01, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 11:02 AM, Joshua Kinard <kumba@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> On 02/16/2015 09:04, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>> I do think that moving to a cleaner policy makes a lot of sense.  The
>>> problem is that doing this sort of thing right potentially involves a
>>> lot of work as well.  Maybe another approach is to just ditch per-file
>>> copyrights entirely (which a random perusal suggests is how Linux does
>>> things), but that would STILL require stripping the copyright out of
>>> these files with all the issues that entails, and limit our ability to
>>> borrow license-compatible code.
>>
>> Focusing on the last paragraph here (but not snipping), my understanding is the
>> kernel retains per-file copyrights.  This is why the kernel is permanently
>> wedded to GPLv2, because some of the contributors owning those copyrights have
>> died and thus can no longer consent to changing to the GPLv3 (or any other OSI
>> license, or copyright change).  Trying to track down their appropriate heirs,
>> explain the whole situation, and then seek a consent would be a near-impossible
>> undertaking.  Hence, permanent GPLv2.
> 
> Perhaps I should have worded that better.
> 
> s/per-file copyrights/per-file copyright notices/
> 
> Obviously the content of individual files will always be copyrighted
> absent a release into the public domain.  The Linux kernel just
> doesn't stick notices on individual files that attempt to identify who
> owns the copyright on what.  Presumably that also means that if they
> borrow a file from somewhere else they don't care to change the
> copyright notice that was already there (or somehow they manage to
> avoid the euthusiasm stirred up by removing said notices).

Well, I just sent a patch upstream that adds a new RTC driver to the kernel,
and I added copyright to myself and the guy that created the original driver
that I based off of to the top of the source file (and its header).  So that
practice is still used, and akpm recently added it to -mm with no comment on
any of the copyright bits, so I must've gotten part that right.

It's probably left to the person writing the specific source file(s) on how
they want to do copyright, as long as they stick to recognized norms and GPLv2.

-- 
Joshua Kinard
Gentoo/MIPS
kumba@gentoo.org
4096R/D25D95E3 2011-03-28

"The past tempts us, the present confuses us, the future frightens us.  And our
lives slip away, moment by moment, lost in that vast, terrible in-between."

--Emperor Turhan, Centauri Republic

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/libusbhp: ChangeLog Manifest libusbhp-1.0.2.ebuild metadata.xml

[Duncan]

Joshua Kinard posted on Tue, 17 Feb 2015 12:46:12 -0500 as excerpted:

> On 02/16/2015 13:01, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 11:02 AM, Joshua Kinard <kumba@gentoo.org>
>> wrote:
>>> On 02/16/2015 09:04, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Maybe another approach is to just ditch
>>>> per-file copyrights entirely (which a random perusal suggests is how
>>>> Linux does things), but that would STILL require stripping the
>>>> copyright out of these files with all the issues that entails, and
>>>> limit our ability to borrow license-compatible code.
>>>
>>> [M]y understanding is the kernel retains per-file copyrights.  This
>>> is why the kernel is permanently wedded to GPLv2, because some of the
>>> contributors owning those copyrights have died and thus can no longer
>>> consent to changing to the GPLv3[.]
>> 
>> Perhaps I should have worded that better.
>> 
>> s/per-file copyrights/per-file copyright notices/
>> 
>> Obviously the content of individual files will always be copyrighted
>> absent a release into the public domain.  The Linux kernel just doesn't
>> stick notices on individual files that attempt to identify who owns the
>> copyright on what.  Presumably that also means that if they borrow a
>> file from somewhere else they don't care to change the copyright notice
>> that was already there (or somehow they manage to avoid the euthusiasm
>> stirred up by removing said notices).
> 
> Well, I just sent a patch upstream that adds a new RTC driver to the
> kernel, and I added copyright to myself and the guy that created the
> original driver that I based off of to the top of the source file (and
> its header).  So that practice is still used, and akpm recently added it
> to -mm with no comment on any of the copyright bits, so I must've gotten
> part that right.
> 
> It's probably left to the person writing the specific source file(s) on
> how they want to do copyright, as long as they stick to recognized norms
> and GPLv2.

The kernel's relatively relaxed per-file copyright and license policy is 
in the context of git and its record of a rather strong explicit
per-commit signed-off-by policy.  As a result of the strong per-commit 
signed-off-by policy, they can be and are relatively more relaxed on a 
per-file policy, since the sign-off policy requires legal responsibility 
and the authority to grant default-gpl2-only permissions on anything 
committed in the first place.  As such, any file without an explicit 
license CAN BE ASSUMED to have the GPLv2 license, and copyright CAN BE 
ASSUMED to remain with the original author (company in the case of a work-
for-hire unless otherwise stated), because that's part of the conditions 
that are agreed to by the explicit signed-off-by.

Since gentoo lacks this sort of formal signed-off policy and in fact has 
yet to move to git where it could be most easily tracked and enforced 
(let alone such a policy created and formally agreed in the first place), 
the extent to which the kernel's relatively relaxed per-file policies 
could apply to gentoo in its current cvs and policy state is rather 
limited.

IOW, the kernel's policy doesn't apply here, except to the extent that we 
use it as a goal/model to increase the urgency of the switch to git, and 
once having done so, creating and adopting a similarly strict per-commit-
sign-off basic policy context in which to apply a similarly relaxed per-
file policy.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/libusbhp: ChangeLog Manifest libusbhp-1.0.2.ebuild metadata.xml

[Rich Freeman]

On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 9:19 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> wrote:
>
> Since gentoo lacks this sort of formal signed-off policy and in fact has
> yet to move to git where it could be most easily tracked and enforced
> (let alone such a policy created and formally agreed in the first place),
> the extent to which the kernel's relatively relaxed per-file policies
> could apply to gentoo in its current cvs and policy state is rather
> limited.
>
> IOW, the kernel's policy doesn't apply here, except to the extent that we
> use it as a goal/model to increase the urgency of the switch to git, and
> once having done so, creating and adopting a similarly strict per-commit-
> sign-off basic policy context in which to apply a similarly relaxed per-
> file policy.
>

I was thinking more for after the git migration and we have a DCO.  A
big part of what was holding me back from pushing more on the new
policy is the fact that the bookkeeping looks potentially onerous.  If
we could simplify things and be compliant and just have a simple DCO
and optional FLA, then there isn't a lot holding us back besides git
(and maybe we can find a way around that if we're desperate).

-- 
Rich

[gentoo-dev] ebuild copyright assignment

[Jeroen Roovers]

On Mon, 16 Feb 2015 06:39:51 -0500
Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:

> the policy is not "it must be Gentoo copyright", but "it must have a
> header that says Gentoo copyright even though there's no legal basis
> for it".

Correct, but I have my doubts about the allegedly wobbly legal basis. I
do vividly recall reading these:

<http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/copyright/index.xml>
<http://web.archive.org/web/20040604022011/http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/policy.xml>

Copyright in ebuilds (and documentation) should always be assigned to
Gentoo Technologies. Developers must never put their own names in
copyright lines. For more information, please see
<http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/copyright-assignment.xml>
<http://web.archive.org/web/20040624223240/http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/copyright-assignment.xml>

(Page moved to
<http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/copyright/index.xml>
<http://web.archive.org/web/20040618235041/http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/copyright/index.xml>)

This was the pseudo-legal language in place when I became a developer,
and as of this day I still assume all ebuilds' copyright MUST be
assigned to the project. The language does seem to have disappeared
from the website, though. Regardless, the mechanism was that by way of
adding that header, you assign all rights to the Gentoo Foundation,
nee Gentoo Technologies.

I seem to recall the developer quizzes may have had (or indeed
requested) some more information on this matter.

I seem to recall the wobbly legal basis assumed that the entire ebuild
format was copyrighted, which I would agree is unenforceable. But the
language that used to say "all ebuilds' copyrights should be assigned
to [Gentoo]" would still hold.

Note that I am not talking about QA actions or other trivial stuff that
happened in the tree one day here - I'm just wondering where the legal
language from 2004 went.


     jer

Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuild copyright assignment

[Justin (jlec)]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 204 bytes --]

On 18/02/15 08:40, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> I seem to recall the developer quizzes may have had (or indeed
> requested) some more information on this matter.

The test ebuild focuses on this topic.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 951 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuild copyright assignment

[Jeroen Roovers]

On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 08:48:19 +0100
"Justin (jlec)" <jlec@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On 18/02/15 08:40, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> > I seem to recall the developer quizzes may have had (or indeed
> > requested) some more information on this matter.
> 
> The test ebuild focuses on this topic.

What is that?


     jer

Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuild copyright assignment

[Justin (jlec)]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 552 bytes --]

On 18/02/15 09:12, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 08:48:19 +0100
> "Justin (jlec)" <jlec@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 18/02/15 08:40, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
>>> I seem to recall the developer quizzes may have had (or indeed
>>> requested) some more information on this matter.
>>
>> The test ebuild focuses on this topic.
> 
> What is that?
> 
> 
>      jer
> 

At the end of the review session we ask the recruits to fix an ebuild which has
numerous technical and, as mentioned, legal aspects to take care of.

Justin


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 951 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuild copyright assignment

[Jeroen Roovers]

On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 09:34:21 +0100
"Justin (jlec)" <jlec@gentoo.org> wrote:

> At the end of the review session we ask the recruits to fix an ebuild
> which has numerous technical and, as mentioned, legal aspects to take
> care of.

That's a novelty I wasn't aware of, then. The technical
practicalities of copyright assignment have a legal basis which I
assume the test ebuild question(s) doesn't quiz recruits on.


    jer

Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuild copyright assignment

[Justin (jlec)]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 641 bytes --]

On 18/02/15 09:48, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 09:34:21 +0100
> "Justin (jlec)" <jlec@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
>> At the end of the review session we ask the recruits to fix an ebuild
>> which has numerous technical and, as mentioned, legal aspects to take
>> care of.
> 
> That's a novelty I wasn't aware of, then. The technical
> practicalities of copyright assignment have a legal basis which I
> assume the test ebuild question(s) doesn't quiz recruits on.
> 
> 
>     jer
> 

No, explicit question about that. This is part of the set of topics which we
cover outside the scope of the quizzes.

Justin


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 951 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuild copyright assignment

[Peter Stuge]

Justin (jlec) wrote:
> This is part of the set of topics which we
> cover outside the scope of the quizzes.

A brief comment from reality is that this legal problem is quit
likely a significant hurdle for many potential developers - as for me.

If you want contributing to be easy, overhead like this can't exist.

Think Shanzhai, not DMCA.


//Peter

Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuild copyright assignment

[Rich Freeman]

On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 7:28 AM, Peter Stuge <peter@stuge.se> wrote:
> Justin (jlec) wrote:
>> This is part of the set of topics which we
>> cover outside the scope of the quizzes.
>
> A brief comment from reality is that this legal problem is quit
> likely a significant hurdle for many potential developers - as for me.
>
> If you want contributing to be easy, overhead like this can't exist.

It isn't clear to me what the overhead is here.

The only things devs need to do with respect to copyright is follow
the law and ensure that ebuilds have the correct copyright notice.
Following the law doesn't always make things easier, but that isn't
something we really have any choice in.  Putting the correct copyright
notice at the top of your ebuilds isn't that difficult - it is already
in the ebuild template and any other ebuild in the tree you might copy
from.

There are concerns that the current policy isn't ideal legally and
that it restricts our options for accepting outside code.  Those are
legitimate concerns, but any change isn't likely to make things any
easier on contributors.  In fact, many of the potential improvements
are likely to make things harder, which is a big reason why there
hasn't been a huge rush to change things.

It would be nice if we could just tell our developer candidates that
they don't have to be concerned with copyright at all, but that would
not be very good for any of us.  Our mirror sponsors would drop us
like hot potatoes, anybody using us for professional work would be
concerned about needing to double-check everything we do so that they
don't get in trouble, and sooner or later we could end up getting sued
by somebody or at least subject to DMCA takedowns.  Gentoo is very
careful to comply with copyright law, and when we do struggle with
issues they tend to be in very gray areas (which we usually end up
mirror restricting anyway to keep our mirror sponsors out of any
risk).

While the trustees and members of the licensing team tend to get into
discussions around legal details (often tapping into outside resources
when doing so), the average developer really just needs to make sure
that they commit their own work into the tree itself, have permission
for Gentoo to use the work of others, that they stick the standard
copyright notice in their ebuilds, and that anything in a SRC_URI is
under a redistributable license or set RESTRICT="mirror".  Obviously
this is a quick summary and not a substitute for the devmanual - I'm
sure there are one-off situations that come up that I'm not thinking
of.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuild copyright assignment

[Peter Stuge]

Rich Freeman wrote:
> >> This is part of the set of topics which we
> >> cover outside the scope of the quizzes.
> >
> > A brief comment from reality is that this legal problem is quit
> > likely a significant hurdle for many potential developers - as for me.
> >
> > If you want contributing to be easy, overhead like this can't exist.
> 
> It isn't clear to me what the overhead is here.
> 
> The only things devs need to do with respect to copyright is follow
> the law

Ah, but which law? I understand that law in e.g. Germany does not
permit non-natural persons to own copyright. The public domain
concept is also not recognized world-wide.

So a German citizen who wants to contribute an ebuild now has a
significant legal questionmark on their hands, when actually they
just want to publish an ebuild.


> and ensure that ebuilds have the correct copyright notice.

Define correct... ;)


> It would be nice if we could just tell our developer candidates that
> they don't have to be concerned with copyright at all, but that would
> not be very good for any of us.

Every author of every work is automatically concerned with copyright.

I think Gentoo's policy of requiring copyright assignment would be
better replaced with a policy of requiring a (ideally specific) very
permissive license, something like MIT or BSD-2.


> Gentoo is very careful to comply with copyright law

Sure. Being governed by US law is a whole different topic.


//Peter

Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuild copyright assignment

[Rich Freeman]

On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 9:07 AM, Peter Stuge <peter@stuge.se> wrote:
> Rich Freeman wrote:
>>
>> The only things devs need to do with respect to copyright is follow
>> the law
>
> Ah, but which law? I understand that law in e.g. Germany does not
> permit non-natural persons to own copyright. The public domain
> concept is also not recognized world-wide.
>
> So a German citizen who wants to contribute an ebuild now has a
> significant legal questionmark on their hands, when actually they
> just want to publish an ebuild.

We don't ask every Gentoo developer to independently formulate a
copyright policy.

They just have to follow the policy.

Gentoo developers do not need to worry about whether copyright
assignment exists in Germany.  They just have to stick "Copyright
Gentoo Foundation" at the top of their ebuilds.  Whether that policy
makes sense is a different matter, which is why there is a desire to
improve the policy.  Gentoo devs are not required to participate in
these discussions, but they will be required to follow a new policy if
it is enacted.

>
>> and ensure that ebuilds have the correct copyright notice.
>
> Define correct... ;)

# Copyright yyyy-yyyy Gentoo Foundation
# Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2

That is the current policy, and is correct by definition.

Of course, we want to improve on this.  However, all a dev needs to
know today is to do it this way.

>
> I think Gentoo's policy of requiring copyright assignment would be
> better replaced with a policy of requiring a (ideally specific) very
> permissive license, something like MIT or BSD-2.
>

That is part of my draft proposal, though it doesn't specify which
license we'd use.

>
>> Gentoo is very careful to comply with copyright law
>
> Sure. Being governed by US law is a whole different topic.
>

We endeavor to follow the law everywhere.  Whether the current policy
does so is a different topic indeed.  :)

I'm not saying that things are perfect.  I'm just saying that Gentoo
devs don't have to understand copyright law everywhere on the planet
to comply.  Our current policies are fairly simple.  They might or
might not be too simple, but the concern I was replying to was just
the concern that understanding copyright policy is a burden on new
developers.  The current policy is very simple and shouldn't really be
a burden to understand.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuild copyright assignment

[Roy Bamford]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2493 bytes --]

On 2015.02.18 07:40, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Feb 2015 06:39:51 -0500
> Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > the policy is not "it must be Gentoo copyright", but "it must have 
> a
> > header that says Gentoo copyright even though there's no legal 
> basis
> > for it".
> 
> Correct, but I have my doubts about the allegedly wobbly legal basis.
> I
> do vividly recall reading these:
> 
> <http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/copyright/index.xml>
> <http://web.archive.org/web/20040604022011/http://www.gentoo.org/doc/
> en/policy.xml>
> 
> Copyright in ebuilds (and documentation) should always be assigned to
> Gentoo Technologies. Developers must never put their own names in
> copyright lines. For more information, please see
> <http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/copyright-assignment.xml>
> <http://web.archive.org/web/20040624223240/http://www.gentoo.org/
> proj/en/devrel/copyright-assignment.xml>
> 
> (Page moved to
> <http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/copyright/index.xml>
> <http://web.archive.org/web/20040618235041/http://www.gentoo.org/
> proj/en/devrel/copyright/index.xml>)
> 
[snip]

> 
>      jer
> 
> 
> 


Here's some history ...

Gentoo Technologies Inc. was interested in using the Gentoo codebase 
commercially. It was not a financial success and the assets of Gentoo 
Technologies Inc. were transferred to the Gentoo Foundation Inc. when 
drobbins left Gentoo. That would be about 2004, when the Foundation 
was established. Commercial use was easier if Gentoo Technologies Inc. 
held the copyright.

Its unclear if anyone actually completed copyright assignment paperwork 
at any time. The legal standing of the ebuild header is also unclear as 
it has never been tested in court.

The remaining idea behind it today is that it might ensure that the 
Foundation is the target of any legal action resulting from an ebuild 
and conversely can take legal action to defend an ebuild.
I say 'might' as international copyright is a minefield. Its wider than 
just ebuilds, its wherever Foundation copyright is asserted.

Both Gentoo Technologies Inc. and Gentoo Foundation Inc. were/are New 
Mexico legal entities, so are subject to New Mexico law. Of course, if 
you are not in New Mexico, or even the USA, that law may not apply to 
you and that's where the minefield starts.

-- 
Regards,

Roy Bamford
(Neddyseagoon) a member of
elections
gentoo-ops
forum-mods
trustees

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/libusbhp: ChangeLog Manifest libusbhp-1.0.2.ebuild metadata.xml

[Sergey Popov]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1579 bytes --]

16.02.2015 14:44, Markos Chandras пишет:
> On 02/16/15 13:31, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
>> Am Montag 16 Februar 2015, 06:13:10 schrieb Mike Frysinger:
> 
>>> even then, deleting an ebuild purely due to different copyright
>>> is complete bs.
> 
>> The requirement for Gentoo copyright in the main tree is not
>> optional, but has been policy for a very long time.
> 
>> Just because you've been around forever doesnt mean you can break
>> the rules that everyone else is supposed to follow.
> 
> 
> I too believe that if you are reverting someone's commit you should at
> least drop him an email to let him know. How else do you expect him to
> know he did something wrong? I am a bit worried QA is taking such
> actions without communicating that with the developer. If you don't
> let people know they do mistakes, it's likely they will do them again.
> 
> 

This is clear violation of our QA policy and AGAIN, patrick is involved.

@patrick: vapier claims that he was not aware about your actions. But
according to our policy you should notify maintainer. At least in case
of serious actions. I am sure that dropping package is a damn serious
action.

I am not sure how should i proceed. Your work for QA is much
appreciated, but, think about this message as a first warning from me as
QA team lead to you.

Please, be more communicative with your fellow developers.

-- 
Best regards, Sergey Popov
Gentoo developer
Gentoo Desktop Effects project lead
Gentoo Quality Assurance project lead
Gentoo Proxy maintainers project lead


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 473 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/libusbhp: ChangeLog Manifest libusbhp-1.0.2.ebuild metadata.xml

[Sergey Popov]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2866 bytes --]

16.02.2015 14:43, Patrick Lauer пишет:
> On Monday 16 February 2015 06:13:10 Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 1:16 AM, Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>> On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 8:05 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 12:21 AM, Patrick Lauer (patrick)
>>>>
>>>> <patrick@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>>> patrick     14/12/31 05:21:11
>>>>>
>>>>>   Removed:              ChangeLog Manifest libusbhp-1.0.2.ebuild
>>>>>   
>>>>>                         metadata.xml
>>>>>   
>>>>>   Log:
>>>>>   QA: Remove package with invalid copyright
>>>>
>>>> you do not go reverting code without actually talking to people.  if
>>>> you feel like a revert is necessary, then file a bug.  putting a "QA"
>>>> tag at the start of the commit message doesn't give you a pass.
>>>
>>> Normally I'd side with you on this...but I'm fairly sure repoman doesn't
>>> let you commit packages to the tree missing these headers. This leads me
>>> to believe you didn't use repoman, or ignored it?
>>
>> feel free to grab the code i originally committed and run `repoman
>> full` yourself.  no fatal errors.  in fact you can see the generated
>> tags in my commit message.
> 
> Well, AutoRepoman triggered on it.
> 
> Testing for fun on a random ebuild:
> 
> RepoMan scours the neighborhood...
>   ebuild.badheader              1
>    dev-db/hyperdex/hyperdex-1.6.0-r1.ebuild: Invalid Gentoo Copyright on line: 
> 1
> 
> 
> Which again leads me to the question:
> 
> Why are these checks not properly fatal?
> 
> (And I really do not like having to repeat myself ...)
> 
>>
>> even then, deleting an ebuild purely due to different copyright is
>> complete bs.  anyone who understands copyright knows the situation in
>> Gentoo is completely unenforceable.  we have no CLA.  this was
>> patrick/QA wasting people's time to check a meaningless box.
>> -mike
> 
> As others have pointed out, policy is policy. Don't shoot the massager.
> 
> Since I can't just fix the copyright (that would be more wrong) I opted for the 
> easy way out - remove offending bits.
> 
> 
> Have fun,
> 
> Patrick
> 

Your logic is almost flawless. Almost, because you forgot the valuable
part of our policy - notifying maintainer.

If your package will be dropped because you violate QA rules - well,
things can happen.

But if it will be done silently, i am pretty sure that you will be
angry. I would be, definitely.

I am not asking for justification of every action, that QA doing by
maintainer - that would be totally wrong. Just follow our policy:
"Serious issue -> fix and after that notify maintainer".

-- 
Best regards, Sergey Popov
Gentoo developer
Gentoo Desktop Effects project lead
Gentoo Quality Assurance project lead
Gentoo Proxy maintainers project lead


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 473 bytes --]