[gentoo-dev] converting copyright/license information in OpenRC

[gentoo-dev] converting copyright/license information in OpenRC

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 863 bytes --]

Hi all,

currently, OpenRC has file-based copyright/licensing information. I
would like to centralize all of this information, following the
centralized model described here [1].

This would mean that, at the top of each file, there would be a
copyright notice stating:

Copyright <years> OpenRC authors

[with the licensing information from the page I am referring to
mentioning the license and a copy of the license at the top level of the
distro]

Then there would be a file, Authors, at the top level listing everyone
who has submitted code to the project.

Does anyone see any legal issues I need to worry about in doing this?
The web site seems to advise that it is legal to do this type of
conversion, so I want to find out what others think here as well.

Thanks,

William

[1] https://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2012/ManagingCopyrightInformation.html

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: converting copyright/license information in OpenRC

[Ulrich Mueller]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1013 bytes --]

>>>>> On Fri, 11 Dec 2015, William Hubbs wrote:

> currently, OpenRC has file-based copyright/licensing information.
> I would like to centralize all of this information, following the
> centralized model described here [1].

> This would mean that, at the top of each file, there would be a
> copyright notice stating:

> Copyright <years> OpenRC authors

> [with the licensing information from the page I am referring to
> mentioning the license and a copy of the license at the top level of
> the distro]

OpenRC is licensed under BSD-2, right? That license is rather short,
not much longer than the license notice from [1]. So I wonder if
centralising this is worth the effort. (It also adds one level of
indirection.)

The longest part of BSD-2 is the warranty disclaimer. Not sure if it
would be wise to remove this from individual files. Note that e.g. the
GPL license notice comes with a "no warranty" paragraph.

Ulrich

> [1] https://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2012/ManagingCopyrightInformation.html

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: converting copyright/license information in OpenRC

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1362 bytes --]

On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 09:04:47PM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >>>>> On Fri, 11 Dec 2015, William Hubbs wrote:
> 
> > currently, OpenRC has file-based copyright/licensing information.
> > I would like to centralize all of this information, following the
> > centralized model described here [1].
> 
> > This would mean that, at the top of each file, there would be a
> > copyright notice stating:
> 
> > Copyright <years> OpenRC authors
> 
> > [with the licensing information from the page I am referring to
> > mentioning the license and a copy of the license at the top level of
> > the distro]
> 
> OpenRC is licensed under BSD-2, right? That license is rather short,
> not much longer than the license notice from [1]. So I wonder if
> centralising this is worth the effort. (It also adds one level of
> indirection.)

Well, the OpenRC project is currently inconsistent about this, so the
intention is to make it consistent.

 The .c/.h files have file-scope licenses, but that isn't true for
 everything in the project.

I am willing to make the effort to do this, I was just wondering if
there are any legal pitfalls I need to worry about.

My theory is I can probably use git to find out who all of the authors
are, and generate an Authors list from that information and from looking
at copyright notices.


William

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: converting copyright/license information in OpenRC

[Patrick McLean]

On Fri, 11 Dec 2015 15:37:48 -0600
William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 09:04:47PM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > >>>>> On Fri, 11 Dec 2015, William Hubbs wrote:  
> >   
> Well, the OpenRC project is currently inconsistent about this, so the
> intention is to make it consistent.
> 
>  The .c/.h files have file-scope licenses, but that isn't true for
>  everything in the project.
> 
> I am willing to make the effort to do this, I was just wondering if
> there are any legal pitfalls I need to worry about.
> 
> My theory is I can probably use git to find out who all of the authors
> are, and generate an Authors list from that information and from
> looking at copyright notices.
> 

One concern about this is the possibility of copied code. If OpenRC
ever copied code from other BSD licensed projects, then dropping the
notice from the top of the file would be a violation of the upstream
license.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: converting copyright/license information in OpenRC

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1480 bytes --]

On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 02:16:30PM -0800, Patrick McLean wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Dec 2015 15:37:48 -0600
> William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 09:04:47PM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > > >>>>> On Fri, 11 Dec 2015, William Hubbs wrote:  
> > >   
> > Well, the OpenRC project is currently inconsistent about this, so the
> > intention is to make it consistent.
> > 
> >  The .c/.h files have file-scope licenses, but that isn't true for
> >  everything in the project.
> > 
> > I am willing to make the effort to do this, I was just wondering if
> > there are any legal pitfalls I need to worry about.
> > 
> > My theory is I can probably use git to find out who all of the authors
> > are, and generate an Authors list from that information and from
> > looking at copyright notices.
> > 
> 
> One concern about this is the possibility of copied code. If OpenRC
> ever copied code from other BSD licensed projects, then dropping the
> notice from the top of the file would be a violation of the upstream
> license.

The only thing I know about immediately that we have copied from an
upstream is queue.h, and sure, I wasn't planning on touching that file.
The same applies to any other files copied from an upstream that I find,
or any functions that I see that are obviously copied. I'm thinking I
will be able to detect this by extra copyright notices that are from
sources not listed in the log.

William


[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: converting copyright/license information in OpenRC

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1138 bytes --]

On 11 Dec 2015 14:16, Patrick McLean wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Dec 2015 15:37:48 -0600 William Hubbs wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 09:04:47PM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > > >>>>> On Fri, 11 Dec 2015, William Hubbs wrote:  
> > >   
> > Well, the OpenRC project is currently inconsistent about this, so the
> > intention is to make it consistent.
> > 
> >  The .c/.h files have file-scope licenses, but that isn't true for
> >  everything in the project.
> > 
> > I am willing to make the effort to do this, I was just wondering if
> > there are any legal pitfalls I need to worry about.
> > 
> > My theory is I can probably use git to find out who all of the authors
> > are, and generate an Authors list from that information and from
> > looking at copyright notices.
> 
> One concern about this is the possibility of copied code. If OpenRC
> ever copied code from other BSD licensed projects, then dropping the
> notice from the top of the file would be a violation of the upstream
> license.

OpenRC isn't purely Gentoo copyright, so it's already a violation.
the majority of entries belong to Roy.
-mike

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: converting copyright/license information in OpenRC

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1795 bytes --]

On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 12:05:07AM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On 11 Dec 2015 14:16, Patrick McLean wrote:
> > On Fri, 11 Dec 2015 15:37:48 -0600 William Hubbs wrote:
> > > On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 09:04:47PM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > > > >>>>> On Fri, 11 Dec 2015, William Hubbs wrote:  
> > > >   
> > > Well, the OpenRC project is currently inconsistent about this, so the
> > > intention is to make it consistent.
> > > 
> > >  The .c/.h files have file-scope licenses, but that isn't true for
> > >  everything in the project.
> > > 
> > > I am willing to make the effort to do this, I was just wondering if
> > > there are any legal pitfalls I need to worry about.
> > > 
> > > My theory is I can probably use git to find out who all of the authors
> > > are, and generate an Authors list from that information and from
> > > looking at copyright notices.
> > 
> > One concern about this is the possibility of copied code. If OpenRC
> > ever copied code from other BSD licensed projects, then dropping the
> > notice from the top of the file would be a violation of the upstream
> > license.
> 
> OpenRC isn't purely Gentoo copyright, so it's already a violation.
> the majority of entries belong to Roy.

I have no idea what you mean by "it's already a violation", and I'm not
sure what Gentoo Copyright has to do with it.

Altering Copyright statements to try to claim Gentoo copyright would
definitely be a violation, but that's not what I'm wanting to do.

My goal is to centralize the Copyright and license information we
already have, as much as possible [1]. This site seems to imply that
moving Copyright/Author information around is legal.

William

[1] https://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2012/ManagingCopyrightInformation.html

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: converting copyright/license information in OpenRC

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1856 bytes --]

On 15 Dec 2015 09:31, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 12:05:07AM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On 11 Dec 2015 14:16, Patrick McLean wrote:
> > > On Fri, 11 Dec 2015 15:37:48 -0600 William Hubbs wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 09:04:47PM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > > > > >>>>> On Fri, 11 Dec 2015, William Hubbs wrote:  
> > > > >   
> > > > Well, the OpenRC project is currently inconsistent about this, so the
> > > > intention is to make it consistent.
> > > > 
> > > >  The .c/.h files have file-scope licenses, but that isn't true for
> > > >  everything in the project.
> > > > 
> > > > I am willing to make the effort to do this, I was just wondering if
> > > > there are any legal pitfalls I need to worry about.
> > > > 
> > > > My theory is I can probably use git to find out who all of the authors
> > > > are, and generate an Authors list from that information and from
> > > > looking at copyright notices.
> > > 
> > > One concern about this is the possibility of copied code. If OpenRC
> > > ever copied code from other BSD licensed projects, then dropping the
> > > notice from the top of the file would be a violation of the upstream
> > > license.
> > 
> > OpenRC isn't purely Gentoo copyright, so it's already a violation.
> > the majority of entries belong to Roy.
> 
> I have no idea what you mean by "it's already a violation", and I'm not
> sure what Gentoo Copyright has to do with it.

your description sounds like you want to run:
  s/Copyright .*/Copyright OpenRC Authors/

i'm saying you can't do that

> Altering Copyright statements to try to claim Gentoo copyright would
> definitely be a violation, but that's not what I'm wanting to do.

adding multiple entries isn't a problem and in fact could/should be done
in most openrc files at this time
-mike

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: converting copyright/license information in OpenRC

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2599 bytes --]

On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 02:24:22PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On 15 Dec 2015 09:31, William Hubbs wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 12:05:07AM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > On 11 Dec 2015 14:16, Patrick McLean wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 11 Dec 2015 15:37:48 -0600 William Hubbs wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 09:04:47PM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>> On Fri, 11 Dec 2015, William Hubbs wrote:  
> > > > > >   
> > > > > Well, the OpenRC project is currently inconsistent about this, so the
> > > > > intention is to make it consistent.
> > > > > 
> > > > >  The .c/.h files have file-scope licenses, but that isn't true for
> > > > >  everything in the project.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I am willing to make the effort to do this, I was just wondering if
> > > > > there are any legal pitfalls I need to worry about.
> > > > > 
> > > > > My theory is I can probably use git to find out who all of the authors
> > > > > are, and generate an Authors list from that information and from
> > > > > looking at copyright notices.
> > > > 
> > > > One concern about this is the possibility of copied code. If OpenRC
> > > > ever copied code from other BSD licensed projects, then dropping the
> > > > notice from the top of the file would be a violation of the upstream
> > > > license.
> > > 
> > > OpenRC isn't purely Gentoo copyright, so it's already a violation.
> > > the majority of entries belong to Roy.
> > 
> > I have no idea what you mean by "it's already a violation", and I'm not
> > sure what Gentoo Copyright has to do with it.
> 
> your description sounds like you want to run:
>   s/Copyright .*/Copyright OpenRC Authors/
> 
> i'm saying you can't do that
 
 That's the first part, the second part is to have an Authors file at
 the top level that lists all of the authors and refer to that in the
 copyright statement, see the license branch of the main github repo and
 let me know if this is legal. The site I linked seems to think so
 because I'm not deleting copyright attributions, just moving them around.

> > Altering Copyright statements to try to claim Gentoo copyright would
> > definitely be a violation, but that's not what I'm wanting to do.
> 
> adding multiple entries isn't a problem and in fact could/should be done
> in most openrc files at this time

Multiple entries are what I want to get away from; it is a nightmare to
maintain, and the vcs shows far better than you or I ever could
which code belongs to who (see git blame). That is what the site I
linked talks about.

William


[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: converting copyright/license information in OpenRC

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 746 bytes --]

On 15 Dec 2015 13:37, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 02:24:22PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > your description sounds like you want to run:
> >   s/Copyright .*/Copyright OpenRC Authors/
> > 
> > i'm saying you can't do that
>  
>  That's the first part, the second part is to have an Authors file at
>  the top level that lists all of the authors and refer to that in the
>  copyright statement, see the license branch of the main github repo and
>  let me know if this is legal. The site I linked seems to think so
>  because I'm not deleting copyright attributions, just moving them around.

i don't think it's kosher.  just reach out to Roy and see if he's OK
with it and that'll avoid any ambiguity.
-mike

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: converting copyright/license information in OpenRC

[Alexander Berntsen]

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

I agree with Mike that this isn't kosher. It just isn't honest.

On 15/12/15 20:37, William Hubbs wrote:
> Multiple entries are what I want to get away from; it is a
> nightmare to maintain, and the vcs shows far better than you or I
> ever could which code belongs to who (see git blame). That is what
> the site I linked talks about.
Using a VCS to track attribution is what's a nightmare. Using git
blame on a source file will usually just tell you who last reindented
the file for stylistic preference. Actually finding out something
worth knowing is a lot more work.
- -- 
Alexander
bernalex@gentoo.org
https://secure.plaimi.net/~alexander
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
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=XCBY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: converting copyright/license information in OpenRC

[Rich Freeman]

On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 6:43 AM, Alexander Berntsen <bernalex@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> I agree with Mike that this isn't kosher. It just isn't honest.
>

I don't really have a horse in this race, but I don't see how this is
dishonest.  What is being proposed is moving from attribution
scattered all over the place to attribution in a single place.  Nobody
who is credited in a file today wouldn't still be credited in the
proposed system.  They'll just be credited side-by-side with everybody
else in once place.

I'm sure you'll be able to find somebody who will be offended if we
move their name from /src/a/b/randomfile to /AUTHORS but finding
people offended by things that happen with FOSS is pretty easy to do.

> On 15/12/15 20:37, William Hubbs wrote:
>> Multiple entries are what I want to get away from; it is a
>> nightmare to maintain, and the vcs shows far better than you or I
>> ever could which code belongs to who (see git blame). That is what
>> the site I linked talks about.
> Using a VCS to track attribution is what's a nightmare. Using git
> blame on a source file will usually just tell you who last reindented
> the file for stylistic preference. Actually finding out something
> worth knowing is a lot more work.

Git blame is simplistic, but attribution is a nightmare no matter how
you look at it, unless you just define it as a list of anybody who
committed to a file, in which case git can answer that question for
you rather easily.  This is part of why we still haven't come up with
a better copyright policy for the main tree - when you try to make
things more rigorous the effort to maintain things can go up really
quickly (patch authors, people who have assigned/licensed their
contributions to Gentoo, borrowed/forked code from other projects,
etc).

I think part of the problem is that we're looking for perfect
solutions, and holding onto bad solutions until one is found, which
will probably never happen.

There seems to be also a tendency to give advice like "talk to a
lawyer or so-and-so" with the perhaps well-intended meaning of only
moving forward if there is no risk of problems.  It needs to be kept
in mind that there are often problems with keeping things as they are,
and there are often problems with change.  In the area of copyright in
the US there are rarely any approaches that are free of risk, and the
ones with the least risk may also be the ones which are the most
rigorous or inconvenient to implement.  No lawyer can tell you what
the right level of risk acceptance is, but they can tell you a list of
all the bad things that can happen to you with any option.

Most companies accept legal risk every day, often intentionally.  It
has to be balanced against the mission of the organization.  That
doesn't mean that we should be doing things that are wrong, of course.

So, we should of course be talking to a lawyer anytime we add a
package with a new license to the tree, or change our copyright
policy, or make big changes to attribution like these.  However, you
need to go into such things with a balanced view, or all you'll end up
doing is pursing the most conservative possible approach every time,
or maintaining the status quo.  I suspect there are MANY accepted
practices in Gentoo that a lawyer would advise caution regarding
(libdvdcss, just about anything involving -bindist, half of the
oddball-license packages in the tree, anything with
RESTRICT=mirror/fetch, kernel fat32 support, and so on).

So, by all means talk to a lawyer/etc.  However, I'd tend to advocate
a balanced approach, and not necessarily a zero-risk approach.  On the
list of risks to Gentoo I'm not sure the way OpenRC authors are
tracked really ranks super-high.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: converting copyright/license information in OpenRC

[Alexander Berntsen]

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

On 16/12/15 13:39, Rich Freeman wrote:
> I don't see how this is dishonest.
You answered this yourself,

> They'll just be credited side-by-side with everybody else in once 
> place.

- -- 
Alexander
bernalex@gentoo.org
https://secure.plaimi.net/~alexander
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
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=3CBF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: converting copyright/license information in OpenRC

[Rich Freeman]

On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Alexander Berntsen <bernalex@gentoo.org> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA512
>
> On 16/12/15 13:39, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> I don't see how this is dishonest.
> You answered this yourself,
>
>> They'll just be credited side-by-side with everybody else in once
>> place.

How is this dishonest?  I see how it is less granular in one
particular format.  All the current OpenRC authors will be credited.
The granular details of their contributions will still be present in
git, even if it is hard to access.

We just won't credit them in the individual file they contributed to.

Is there some practical situation where you see this as being
disadvantageous to a contributor?  If I'm an employer looking to hire
somebody, knowing they contributed to openrc is probably as useful to
knowing they contributed to /lib64/rc/bin/service_starting.  If I
REALLY care about the specific nature of their contributions, I'm
going to care what their actual commits were, and for that matter if
they were of a high quality.  It seems like the current system is an
intermediate level of detail that doesn't seem useful, just cumbersome
(in the opinion of the maintainers - it isn't like I have to maintain
this stuff).

The other side of this is that you could argue that the openrc
maintainers might be able to just save themselves some headaches and
not host this stuff on Gentoo infra, and then they can just do
whatever they want.  It isn't like we tell the sysvinit maintainers
how to manage their code, and it isn't like Gentoo is the only distro
that uses openrc.


-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: converting copyright/license information in OpenRC

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 998 bytes --]

On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 10:31:08AM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Alexander Berntsen <bernalex@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA512
> >
> > On 16/12/15 13:39, Rich Freeman wrote:
> >> I don't see how this is dishonest.
> > You answered this yourself,
> >
> >> They'll just be credited side-by-side with everybody else in once
> >> place.
> 
> How is this dishonest?  I see how it is less granular in one
> particular format.  All the current OpenRC authors will be credited.
> The granular details of their contributions will still be present in
> git, even if it is hard to access.

I spoke with Roy,  and he has only asked that we keep the attribution in
the binary form the same as it currently is on the master branch, and he
has asked that I show him the commit that makes the change before it
hits the master branch.

There is no intent to be dishonest, just consolidating attributions.

William


[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]