cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Noah Slater <nsla...@tumbolia.org>
Subject Re: [ASFCS40][DISCUSS] How should we move forward to resolution on the config files in "patches"? Was: "Re: [ASFCS40] Configuration file licensing followup"
Date Thu, 13 Sep 2012 10:45:41 GMT
Sorry, just to cite that:

http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/maintain.html

On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Noah Slater <nslater@tumbolia.org> wrote:

> Sorry to be the voice of descent here, but I don't think 1C is viable.
> (Without knowing more specifics about what we're talking about here.)
>
> Copyright law does not concern itself with distinctions like "executable
> code vs config file". Copyright concerns itself with *creative works*. So
> if the config file is large enough to be deemed a creative work, then
> copyright applies.
>
> Now, from my work with the FSF, I remember this rule of thumb:
>
> If a person contributes more than around 15 lines of code and/or text that
>> is legally significant for copyright purposes, we need copyright papers for
>> that contribution, as described above.
>
>
>
> A change of just a few lines (less than 15 or so) is not legally
>> significant for copyright. A regular series of repeated changes, such as
>> renaming a symbol, is not legally significant even if the symbol has to be
>> renamed in many places. Keep in mind, however, that a series of minor
>> changes by the same person can add up to a significant contribution. What
>> counts is the total contribution of the person; it is irrelevant which
>> parts of it were contributed when.
>
>
> We can be fairly certain this was vetted by the FSF's legal council. I do
> not think that the ASF has something similar to this, but I think it is
> sound advice non-the-less.
>
> I do not believe we have the right to assume something is not a creative
> work just because we class it as "configuration". (It could be argued that
> a simple Rails app is just "configuration" for instance. Heh, heh, heh.)
>
> Where do these config files come from?
>
> Where are they located?
>
> What do we want to do with them?
>
> How many are there?
>
> (Feel free to point me to mailing list threads, if these have already been
> answered.)
>
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 8:55 AM, Wido den Hollander <wido@widodh.nl>wrote:
>
>> On 09/12/2012 09:42 PM, Chip Childers wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> (Looking for mentor guidance here as well please!)
>>>
>>> On this topic, we need to come together as a community to figure out
>>> how we want to proceed with these configuration files.  It doesn't
>>> seem like we are going to get a definitive answer on legal-discuss@a.o
>>> without asking about a specific file from a specific source.  There
>>> HAS been a little discussion about the ability of a configuration file
>>> to be copyright on the legal list, but it didn't go much further than
>>> a couple of emails.
>>>
>>> As far as I can tell, we have some options:
>>>
>>> 1 - Do a file by file audit to confirm the source and if there is any
>>> claim of copyright on those files, and then either:
>>> 1.A - Ask the source project if they would consider granting a
>>> different license for just that config file.
>>> 1.B - Ask legal-discuss@a.o for specific exemptions
>>> 1.C - Do nothing, because the file isn't something that a copyright is
>>> claimed on (and we wouldn't claim a copyright either)
>>>
>>
>> I'd go for 1C
>>
>> Wido
>>
>>
>>  1.D - Spec out the requirements, and have someone attempt a clean-room
>>> implementation (I think that I could find someone if it gets to this)
>>> 2 - Follow up on the concept of configuration files not being
>>> protected by copyright, and ask for a ruling from legal-discuss on
>>> that idea.
>>>
>>> There may be other options that I'm missing.  I'm looking for opinions
>>> and suggestions for how to move forward, since this is absolutely one
>>> of the blocker issues for a 4.0 release.  Thoughts?
>>>
>>> -chip
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Chip Childers <chip.childers@sungard.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Chiradeep,
>>>>
>>>> Would you mind putting together the specific example data being
>>>> requested by Daniel [1] on legal-discuss@a.o in response to the legal
>>>> Jira that you raised [2]?
>>>>
>>>> The legal thread includes some discussion on the possibility of config
>>>> files even being something that could enjoy license protection, but we
>>>> should probably plan on dealing with the potential provenance issues
>>>> anyway.
>>>>
>>>> -chip
>>>>
>>>> [1] - http://markmail.org/message/**p6kxbvzybyu552p2<http://markmail.org/message/p6kxbvzybyu552p2>
>>>> [2] - https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/LEGAL-146<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-146>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> NS
>



-- 
NS

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