cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Noah Slater <>
Subject Re: [CONFIG FILES] License headers
Date Tue, 25 Sep 2012 09:52:49 GMT
We can't disavow copyright on files because we don't consider them creative

What we can do, however, is use a simple persmissive license, like this:

"Copying and distribution of this file, with or without modification, are
permitted in any medium without royalty provided the copyright notice and
this notice are preserved. This file is offered as-is, without any

I have taken this from here:

I can follow this up on legal-discuss if people are interested in using
this in our config files.

For third party files (anything more complex than key, value assignments)
we cannot add our own license header. But we should be making a note of the
author, copyright, and parent project URL in the NOTICE file, as I mention
on another thread.

On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 8:13 PM, Joe Brockmeier <> wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 21, 2012, at 01:53 PM, Chiradeep Vittal wrote:
> > There is a long list of blocker bugs [1] regarding the configuration
> > files checked in to the repository. Some of the bugs ask that the Apache
> > License header be inserted into the config file if it is indeed resolved
> > as "written specifically for CloudStack".
> >
> > My question is whether this is necessary —
> >
> >  1.  Almost all configuration files in the universe do not have a license
> >  header, this seems to break convention
> >  2.  It may make it harder to compare CloudStack configurations with
> >  "stock" configuration files
> If we want to be extra-cautious without putting undue noise in the
> configuration files, could we simply put something in the NOTICE file
> like this?
> "Configuration files for third-party programs written specifically for
> distribution with Apache CloudStack are provided under the Apache
> Software License 2.0"
> or
> "Configuration files for third-party programs written specifically for
> distribution with Apache CloudStack are not considered to be under
> copyright. You may use, modify, and distribute those files without
> restriction."
> The second would be my preference as I am of the opinion configuration
> files are not expressive works, but data and should not be encumbered by
> copyright. Of course, I'm not a lawyer, so my opinion is just that -
> opinion - and not legal guidance. (It *does* seem to be the pervasive
> view with most FOSS communities, though.)
> Best,
> Joe
> --
> Joe Brockmeier
> Twitter: @jzb


  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message