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

Fri Jul 19 18:43:07 UTC 2013

On Jul 17, 2013, at 10:49 PM, Nikola M. <minikola at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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??

No, but I also have no idea what you mean.

> We should have then contribution process to have only contributions that
> are in-line with the current project licensing.

You clearly have no understanding of licenses or copyright law.

Contribution processes for *illumos* require that contributions come in the form a suitable license.  We don't permit proprietary licenses, and in many cases we don't permit GPL.  We strongly encourage the CDDL for new code, but we make allowances for BSD or other liberal licenses that don't conflict with the CDDL.

We *encourage* contributors to actively claim their copyright by adding their own copyright notice.

> 
> CDDL should not contain changes to itself, nor additional copyright
> notices of any kind.

Its inappropriate (and in violation of the license terms) to modify the CDDL license or boilerplate on code that you are not the sole author of.  That boiler plate has *nothing* to do do with the copyright notices, except that without a copyright notice, it becomes impossible to verify *ownership* of the contribution, which is vital.

> 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.

Once code is released in under the CDDL, you it can't be withdrawn.  But an entity that wholly owns a file -- the sole author of a file -- can cease to make updates available under the license as they are free to do whatever they like with it.

Distributed copyright makes that inconvenient for parties like Oracle, who might like to continue to develop the code without giving their changes back.

> 
> If you like it that way - that every contributor puts it's name to a
> file, that would be just ugly.

Its actually *correct*.

> 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??)

You clearly have no idea whereof you speak.  Please seek the advice of a lawyer.  In the meantime, *illumos* policies won't change.

> 
> 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.

No.  When the copyright is in file, it becomes far easier to validate ownership, and far harder for an infringing party to claim ignorance.  Technically no copyright notice at all is *required*, but having the notices gives additional impact when a case is brought forward against an infringing party.

All other discussion on this topic for *illumos* is irrelevant.  We have the policies we have.  If you don't want to claim your own copyright with notices, then feel free not to.  But we encourage other parties to do so, and that isn't going to change.  If you have a problem with that being "ugly", then go write your own operating system.  Those of us who are actively contributing to the OS insist that our copyright notices be present, and that isn't going to change.

Again, I don't speak for OI, but I *do* speak for illumos in this regard.

	- Garrett

> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> oi-dev mailing list
> oi-dev at openindiana.org
> http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/oi-dev