On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 08:37:25PM +0200, Ján Tomko wrote: > On a Tuesday in 2020, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 08:10:02PM +0200, Ján Tomko wrote: > > > On a Tuesday in 2020, Eric Blake wrote: > > > > On 8/4/20 12:33 PM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 07:22:40PM +0200, Ján Tomko wrote: > > > > > > Replace the license blurb in every single file with: > > > > > > SPDX-License-Identifier: <human-readable-string> > > > > > > Coincidentally, this is also machine readable. > > > > > > > > > > I've requested legal clarification previously on whether doing this > > > > > kind of replacement is possible. > > > > > > Thank you for asking that. > > > I was assmuing based on https://gitlab.com/libvirt/libvirt-ci/-/merge_requests/39 > > > where you only objected to the copyright change that such change in > > > the license blurb is okay. > > > > I should have been clearer in that review. I looked at the git log > > history and foiund that all except 1 contributor was doing so as a > > Red Hat employee, and so we could assume Red Hat copyright for all > > the code. > > Is that true for all Red Hat contracts? I don't think it's fair > to assume that. > > > As a representative of Red Hat, we can make such changes > > if Red Hat holds *exclusive* copyright on the file changed. > > That sounds presumptuous. And a last effort measure. I certainly would > not expect any Red Hat associate to change the licensing for content > submitted by other Red Hat associates, unless the legal team and > some committee get involved. > > > There > > is one non-Red Hat contributor we still needed an ACK from though. > > > > > > > The response I got was that it is > > > > > NOT acceptable unless you have the permission of all copyright > > > > > holders on the source files. The terms of the GPL require that > > > > > license notices are not modified. Replacing this header with the > > > > > SPDX tag counts as modification, even though its essentially > > > > > just a different way of presenting the same information. > > > > > > > > > > NB, the fact that the kernel did such a conversion is not on its > > > > > own, a sufficient ok for doing it in libvirt, as we don't see > > > > > the prep work/analysis/discussions that led into the kernel's > > > > > change. > > > > > > I'm sorry, I haven't been following the kernel lists. Given that > > > the consent of *all* the contributors is needed, should I just > > > drop the idea or would you be open to acking the changes where > > > you are one of the contributors (IOW: libvirt) > > > > For libvirt.git we've such a broad contributor base, and we've > > copy+pasted code between files so frequently, that its very > > difficult to prove who holds copyright on individual files. > > Especially due to our early CVS days, we can't trust the git > > logs either, since alot of code was committed on behalf of > > other people. > > Can we somehow encourage this for new files? The repetitive > blurb really hurts human copmrehension. I did not add any of the license blurb in any of the meson files so feel free to add the new fancy blurb there. :) Pavel > > > For any brand new projects people start though, I'd encourage > > usage of only SPDX tags. For libvirt-devaddr.git for example, > > I intend to only use SPDX. > > > > There might be some other easy repos such as lang bindings > > where we can see all the contributors are Red Hat copyright > > and make a similar change without difficulty. > > > > > > > So NACK to this change. > > > > > > > > While wholesale replacement of the text is legally problematic, _adding_ > > > > the SPDX tag (in addition to what is already present), should not be an > > > > issue, if you want to respin a lighter-weight patch along those lines. > > > > > > That might be beneficial in the GPL-v3+ cases. Possibly GPL-v2+ cases > > > (as opposed to LGPL-v2+ cases) to single them out. > > > > > > I don't see the point in libvirt adding more of cruft while not removing > > > any. > > > > > There's a potential benefit of having SPDX, even if license text is not > > removed in that it allows for easier machine interrogation fo the source. > > ....as long as the tags are consistent with the license header of course > > > > Yes, which is I'd rather have one or the other. > > > For example FSF has a tool called "reuse" helps to audit code > > https://reuse.software/ > > > > Overall I have a slight bias in favour of having SPDX tags, even with the > > license text still present, but I agree the benefit is marginal. > > > > Yeah, my main motivation was deleting lines. > OTOH, we see the GPLv3 files. > > Jano > > > Regards, > > Daniel > > -- > > |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| > > |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| > > |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :| > >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
