OE-Core copyright notices


Richard Purdie
 

I've been worrying about license and copyright information in our
codebase for a while. We're slowly getting there with license info and
scripts have good information now. We still need to work out license
info for recipe metadata and patches but one step at a time.

For copyright, I think we need a proposal, so here goes!

I think we should add something, the question is what/where. There was
an LF post about this:

https://www.linuxfoundation.org/blog/copyright-notices-in-open-source-software-projects/

and I'd like to propose we follow the recommendation there and for OE-
Core, go with:

"Copyright OpenEmbedded Contributors"

where we don't already have a copyright statement. Similarly, bitbake
would be "Copyright BitBake Contributors" but I think much of bitbake
does have copyright statements so is already in a better state.

If individuals want to mention themselves as authors or named copyright
holders, or it is a company requirement, that is fine too as things are
today, this is mainly to cover the case where there is no current
copyright.

Where we have year information, we may want to phase that out as it
doesn't buy us anything.

I'm mentioning this as we have OEDVM on Friday and this may (or may
not) be something we need to discuss. I do want to ensure people not at
the meeting also see this and have an opportunity to discuss.

Cheers,

Richard


Denys Dmytriyenko
 

On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 10:13:17AM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
I've been worrying about license and copyright information in our
codebase for a while. We're slowly getting there with license info and
scripts have good information now. We still need to work out license
info for recipe metadata and patches but one step at a time.

For copyright, I think we need a proposal, so here goes!

I think we should add something, the question is what/where. There was
an LF post about this:

https://www.linuxfoundation.org/blog/copyright-notices-in-open-source-software-projects/

and I'd like to propose we follow the recommendation there and for OE-
Core, go with:

"Copyright OpenEmbedded Contributors"

where we don't already have a copyright statement. Similarly, bitbake
would be "Copyright BitBake Contributors" but I think much of bitbake
does have copyright statements so is already in a better state.

If individuals want to mention themselves as authors or named copyright
holders, or it is a company requirement, that is fine too as things are
today, this is mainly to cover the case where there is no current
copyright.

Where we have year information, we may want to phase that out as it
doesn't buy us anything.

I'm mentioning this as we have OEDVM on Friday and this may (or may
not) be something we need to discuss. I do want to ensure people not at
the meeting also see this and have an opportunity to discuss.
Since I missed the OE dev meeting on Friday due to traveling - was this topic
discussed there and what was the summary? Thanks!

--
Denys


Paul Barker
 

On 17/05/2022 10:13, Richard Purdie wrote:
I've been worrying about license and copyright information in our
codebase for a while. We're slowly getting there with license info and
scripts have good information now. We still need to work out license
info for recipe metadata and patches but one step at a time.
For copyright, I think we need a proposal, so here goes!
I think we should add something, the question is what/where. There was
an LF post about this:
https://www.linuxfoundation.org/blog/copyright-notices-in-open-source-software-projects/
and I'd like to propose we follow the recommendation there and for OE-
Core, go with:
"Copyright OpenEmbedded Contributors"
where we don't already have a copyright statement. Similarly, bitbake
would be "Copyright BitBake Contributors" but I think much of bitbake
does have copyright statements so is already in a better state.
This looks good to me. It's also comptatible with the https://reuse.software specification if we want to automate checking that all files have copyright & license headers in the future.

If individuals want to mention themselves as authors or named copyright
holders, or it is a company requirement, that is fine too as things are
today, this is mainly to cover the case where there is no current
copyright.
Where we have year information, we may want to phase that out as it
doesn't buy us anything.
I'm mentioning this as we have OEDVM on Friday and this may (or may
not) be something we need to discuss. I do want to ensure people not at
the meeting also see this and have an opportunity to discuss.
Cheers,
Richard
--
Paul Barker
Principal Software Engineer
SanCloud Ltd

e: paul.barker@...
w: https://sancloud.com/


Andrei Gherzan
 

On Mon, 23 May 2022, at 09:26, Paul Barker wrote:
On 17/05/2022 10:13, Richard Purdie wrote:
I've been worrying about license and copyright information in our
codebase for a while. We're slowly getting there with license info and
scripts have good information now. We still need to work out license
info for recipe metadata and patches but one step at a time.

For copyright, I think we need a proposal, so here goes!

I think we should add something, the question is what/where. There was
an LF post about this:

https://www.linuxfoundation.org/blog/copyright-notices-in-open-source-software-projects/

and I'd like to propose we follow the recommendation there and for OE-
Core, go with:

"Copyright OpenEmbedded Contributors"

where we don't already have a copyright statement. Similarly, bitbake
would be "Copyright BitBake Contributors" but I think much of bitbake
does have copyright statements so is already in a better state.
This looks good to me. It's also comptatible with the
https://reuse.software specification if we want to automate checking
that all files have copyright & license headers in the future.
reuse compatibility would be pretty useful and we can give in this way an example for community layers.

Andrei