file headers

[John A Meinel]

Jan Hudec wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2006 at 15:32:20 -0600, John A Meinel wrote:
>> Erik Bågfors wrote:
>>> 2006/2/24, Robert Collins <robertc at robertcollins.net>:
>>>> Lets talk about how the top of a source file should look, so we can all
>>>> agree that we've agreed :).
>>>>
>>>> # Copyright (C) 2006 by Canonical Ltd
>>> Should all source be copyright to Canonical, does that mean that if we
>>> have contributed anything, we have to sign copyright over?
>>>
>>> /Erik
>> I would like to hear what Canonical has to say about this.
>>
>> I realize it is easier if one entity owns all of the copyrights, not to
>> say people don't own their own work, just that more than one group can
>> have the right to copy. Having a unified group own everything means that
>> if there were ever a need to change the license (like the upcoming
>> possible move to GPL v3), it is nearly impossible without having a
>> unified group.
> 
> As for move to GPL v3, bzr is licenced as 'GPL v2 or, at your option, any
> later version'. Therefore I think (IANAL) anyone can change it to GPL v3 or,
> at your option, any later version' in any particular copy and it will then
> apply to all versions derived from that copy (but not to versions derived
> from earlier copies, which it won't anyway, since you can't change the
> licensing retroactively).
> 
>> I suppose that might be one reason to keep Authors, though. Since it is
>> kind of a "and these people have rights to this code too."
> 
> For one think I vaguely recall GPL actually requires it (though I am not
> going to look it up now - maybe it's FSF or some guidelines to require that).
> 

I'm sure GPL doesn't require it, because the Linux kernel is GPL v2
only, and everyone owns their own code. Which is why the kernel will
have little to no chance of ever becoming v3.

I do believe it is an FSF guideline, because it vastly simplifies future
licensing. Imagine someone wrote a large portion of the codebase
(Martin), and then decided to go into the peace corps, and not be
available for a couple of years. And in the meantime, the GPL v2 broke
down in the court system, for some weird loophole.

Anyway, I think it is a good guideline. I would just like to hear
Canonical's stance. (I would be more comfortable giving copyright to FSF
than Canonical, but I'm okay with Canonical having it). But I do think
Canonical is more likely to turn something closed source than FSF would
be. Doesn't mean it is likely, just more likely than the FSF.

John
=:->


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20060224/2a9fbf7f/attachment.pgp