cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>
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 18:41:35 GMT
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Noah Slater <nslater@tumbolia.org> wrote:
> Saying that configuration files, in all cases, are not copywritable because
> that are, on the whole, not as complex as code is like saying that blog
> posts, in all cases, are not copywritable because they are, on the whole,
> not as complex as books.
>
> The law is much more nuanced than that. There is no way we can say, up
> front, whether a configuration file is protected by copywrite or not. The
> unwillingness to commit to anything on legal-discuss is an indication of
> this. (It was made explicit that with a vague question, there will only be
> vague answers.)
>
> It might be better to actually document what we have, and then present that
> to legal discuss and take it from there.
>
> Let's get concrete.
>
> We should put together a list of each config file path, along with
> information such as:
>
> * Size of file
> * Complexity (key/value, code snippets, what?)
> * Copyright notice or license header?
> * License of project it (may) have been taken from
> * Origin (Citrix, upstream project, unknown?)
>
> Once we have a complete picture, I think we can talk about how to proceed.
>
> (And hopefully propose a guideline for future config files.)
>
> I certainly do not think we are in a position to write of an entire
> category of data as being uncopywritable.
>
> I am happy to run this to pursue this with legal too, but I think we need a
> better view of what we're dealing with.
>
> Thoughts?
>


Alright, I'll start working on compiling this.

--David

Mime
View raw message