| 1 |
On 11/24/18 12:47 PM, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 03:40:01PM -0500, Sarah White wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 11/23/18 3:25 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> On 2018-11-23 3:23 p.m., Sarah White wrote: |
| 5 |
>>> |
| 6 |
>>>> |
| 7 |
>>>> Either way: multiline copyright notices are legally valid, |
| 8 |
>>>> or is that meant to be disputed? I'm not clear on the |
| 9 |
>>>> intent for this comment: |
| 10 |
>>>> |
| 11 |
>>>> ["...don't have to be listed in a notice"] |
| 12 |
>>>> |
| 13 |
>>> |
| 14 |
>>> legal validity != legal requirement |
| 15 |
>>> |
| 16 |
>>> |
| 17 |
>> |
| 18 |
>> Sure. You're not wrong. |
| 19 |
>> |
| 20 |
>> You've left out the other section which starts: |
| 21 |
>> |
| 22 |
>> ["The interest in removing or discouraging..."] |
| 23 |
>> |
| 24 |
>> What's the purpose of removing or discouraging |
| 25 |
>> something which doesn't harm gentoo, but rather, |
| 26 |
>> helps get more support from: ["contributors who |
| 27 |
>> are in a situation where a contract may require a |
| 28 |
>> copyright notice for anything done on-the-clock"] |
| 29 |
>> |
| 30 |
>> ... and/or other harmless reasons. |
| 31 |
>> |
| 32 |
>> The intent / reasoning for removal or prohibition |
| 33 |
>> of a multiline copyright notice has tenuous footing, |
| 34 |
>> and worries me that nobody in this thread has made |
| 35 |
>> a stronger argument than: ["we're not required by any |
| 36 |
>> law to allow a different copyright notice, so we'll |
| 37 |
>> require it to be a gentoo authors copyright notice."] |
| 38 |
> |
| 39 |
> This is what concerns me as well. All of the folks in this thread who |
| 40 |
> want to forbid multiline copyright notices have yet to convince me that |
| 41 |
> there is a technical argument for doing so. If there is one, I'm willing |
| 42 |
> to be convinced, but that's not what I'm hearing. |
| 43 |
> |
| 44 |
> For example, If there are really performance reasons, let's see the benchmarks |
| 45 |
> proving it. |
| 46 |
> |
| 47 |
> William |
| 48 |
> |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
Yeah, pretty much. The technical details are "simple, but not |
| 51 |
neccessarily obvious", or something like that (not even sure I can |
| 52 |
describe the issue concisely, so I'll try to move on with my point) |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
I figure this is a problem enough organizations have faced, by now |
| 55 |
there's a few minds sharper than mine coming up with a way to implement |
| 56 |
such things (re: layout for copyright / license metadata) like SPDX. |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
If anything, migrating to tooling / utilities / libraries which can |
| 59 |
verify SPDX wasn't malformed could even save development time on the |
| 60 |
gentoo side. It could be as simple as providing a set of example |
| 61 |
templates for valid SPDX which has a "Gentoo Authors" copyright notice |
| 62 |
(and any other required metadata - probably more or less is needed |
| 63 |
depending on the project or license) |
| 64 |
|
| 65 |
This way, anything which is valid SPDX and meets the technical |
| 66 |
requirements shouldn't be difficult to parse, and the burden of |
| 67 |
documenting and providing tools to validate the layout of a copyright |
| 68 |
notice and license metadata is "free", in terms of development churn. |
| 69 |
|
| 70 |
-- kuza |
Archives