[oi-dev] Copyright for contributors - not in files, OI branded zones, binary compatibility

[Nikola M.]

On 07/18/13 05:46 AM, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
>> Hi, I was just looking around changes in hipster,
>> And then I saw this:
>> "# Copyright (c) 2013 Alexander Pyhalov"
>>
>> (https://github.com/OpenIndiana/oi-userland/commit/ab3ce40009249e514e51b0af8d2b8fee490c631a)
>>
>> Please remove this from everywhere it is, since it feels a bit stupid to
>> put one person credit in there/anywhere in changed files, moreover, that
>> is not the place for that as I know, but in changes logs.
>> It is whole distribution copyright file, it is not part of CDDL
>> and I feel like those making changes should, like, restrain themselves
>> from putting such things in the distribution.
> While I don't have any particular interest here, I will say that copyright ownership and attribution is up to the contributor to determine.  The distro can choose to make certain policies, but as for *illumos*, we encourage everyone to assert their copyright as they contribute.  We believe that the community is better protected by having a widely distributed ownership, as that makes it much harder for some other entity to pick up the source and close it up. :-)
>
> changelogs are the place to record changes, not to record ownership.  ownership -- in the form of copyright notices -- is best asserted as close to the content being claimed as possible.  For files, that is usually in the file itself. :-)
Are you saying that... all contributions that are labeled as "Copyright
XYZ, all rights reserved"
could actually be proprietary additions to the project??
We should have then contribution process to have only contributions that
are in-line with the current project licensing.

CDDL should not contain changes to itself, nor additional copyright
notices of any kind.
No one can take away anyone's copyright, it is not what CDDL is about.
CDDL is about persons behind you be able to change your code and
continue work where it's left.

If you like it that way - that every contributor puts it's name to a
file, that would be just ugly.
You should not be surprised to see code that you are developing being
torn apart by lawyers, if such "copyright" claims are close to the code.
_(Also, is every other file is proprietary, what would be with the
project at the end??)

CDDL is COPYLEFT license. And any other notices (in code or in licenses)
are redundant and not helping.
I am all for it that contributors "assert their copyright as they
contribute " for Illumos.
_(And OI Hipster is now pulling plain, vanilla Illumos, is it?)

But CDDL is clearly providing way of any changes be implemented in the
project, without fussing much about who made changes.

>
>
>> Just a thought, before someone important (not me) starts complaining..
>> of putting your own Copyright everywhere. You use CDDL, you don't need
>> your copyright _anywhere_ in the distro..
> You're wrong on that point.  CDDL is the *license*.  The license means *nothing* without an *owner*, which is what Copyright establishes. 
>
> 	- Garrett
Sure. You are right.
Just, putting everyone's copyright everywhere in every file they change
sounds to me like BS behavior.
Everyone keeps their copyright when making something or apply changes.
And information (log) about who is the author (owner) of the changes is
enough to point to who owns a copyright to them.  (No need to especially
carry all contributors list with the code)
So personal "copyright" saying is redundant.

Ownership of the changes is somewhat unimportant to the end user and
contributors coming after changes, once contribution is done.

By changing CDDL licensed (or otherwise licensed) file or project, one
allows it's changes to be distributed under file or project licenses.
There is no way for an individual or a company to extract it's
contribution from the project and make some special claims, after
contribution of the code.
(If yes, it would be undermining project and putting submarine code in a
project)
If there are Additional files in the project (CDDL allows linking with
any licensed files external to the CDDL project files) then they could
hold different licenses (BSD like LGPL etc)

If code contribution is not under respective file or project license,
or one have special need to see it'e name all over the project files,
one should fork project and rename it to something like project XYZ ,
providing license (CDDL) is not changed.

Let put it simple: injecting CDDL with "some random additional
copyright" is behavior that should be avoided, or moreover, should not
be done without consulting someone else but itself,
regarding community of an distribution of an project
are not only ones that change code, but also ones that should use it
under unchanged terms and conditions (and possibly contribute some money).
Let put our eyes to the good practice and avoid bad practice.