License notices in Katello

daviddavis · April 29, 2015, 7:44pm

Unlike foreman and other foreman plugins, Katello has copyright notices at the top of each file. These are an inconvenience to add and a pain to maintain (due to having to update the year). I'd recommend we phase these out of Katello projects. Our files are never distributed individually so we should just rely on the LICENSE file in the root of each repo to contain licensing information. To this end, I propose these rules:

When creating a new file, don't add a copyright notice to the beginning of the file
If you're working in a file and changing a lot of code, consider removing the copyright notice

I think the second rule is somewhat optional and up to each developer's discretion.

Thoughts?

David

iNecas · April 30, 2015, 8:10am

>
> Unlike foreman and other foreman plugins, Katello has copyright notices at
> the top of each file. These are an inconvenience to add and a pain to
> maintain (due to having to update the year). I'd recommend we phase these
> out of Katello projects. Our files are never distributed individually so we
> should just rely on the LICENSE file in the root of each repo to contain
> licensing information. To this end, I propose these rules:
>
> 1. When creating a new file, don't add a copyright notice to the beginning
> of the file
> 2. If you're working in a file and changing a lot of code, consider
> removing the copyright notice
>

If we are down the road of not including the licence files into the source,
I would vote to remove the old notices
that are already there: I would appreciate keeping the consistency. Should
be easy to automate.

···

On Wednesday, April 29, 2015 at 9:44:45 PM UTC+2, David Davis wrote:

I think the second rule is somewhat optional and up to each developer’s
discretion.

Thoughts?

David

dLobatog · April 30, 2015, 7:21am

> Unlike foreman and other foreman plugins, Katello has copyright notices at the top of each file. These are an inconvenience to add and a pain to maintain (due to having to update the year). I'd recommend we phase these out of Katello projects. Our files are never distributed individually so we should just rely on the LICENSE file in the root of each repo to contain licensing information. To this end, I propose these rules:
>
> 1. When creating a new file, don't add a copyright notice to the beginning of the file
> 2. If you're working in a file and changing a lot of code, consider removing the copyright notice
>
> I think the second rule is somewhat optional and up to each developer's discretion.
>
> Thoughts?
I agree with that 100%. GNU doesn't though[1], as apparently it's a risk
someone can just copy your file w/o reading the license. Apache for
example says 'only one copy of the license is needed per distribution'.

Frankly I doubt anyone with the intention of copying our code would do
so without reading the LICENSE file in the repo, we can live with that
'risk'.

My friend 'Sed s///g' wants to take that job.

[1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LicenseCopyOnly

···

On 04/29, David Davis wrote: > > David > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "foreman-dev" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to foreman-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

–
Daniel Lobato Garcia

@eLobatoss
blog.daniellobato.me
daniellobato.me

GPG: http://keys.gnupg.net/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x7A92D6DD38D6DE30
Keybase: https://keybase.io/elobato

Jesus_M_Rodriguez · May 1, 2015, 11:18pm

-1 I vote to keep them. Configure your editor to always add them when you
create a new file. A simple script can replace the year in the entire repo
quite easily. Just because one app does it does not mean everyone does it.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NoticeInSourceFile

jesus

···

On Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 3:21:07 AM UTC-4, Daniel Lobato wrote: > > On 04/29, David Davis wrote: > > Unlike foreman and other foreman plugins, Katello has copyright notices > at the top of each file. These are an inconvenience to add and a pain to > maintain (due to having to update the year). I'd recommend we phase these > out of Katello projects. Our files are never distributed individually so we > should just rely on the LICENSE file in the root of each repo to contain > licensing information. To this end, I propose these rules: > > > > 1. When creating a new file, don't add a copyright notice to the > beginning of the file > > 2. If you're working in a file and changing a lot of code, consider > removing the copyright notice > > > > I think the second rule is somewhat optional and up to each developer's > discretion. > > > > Thoughts? > I agree with that 100%. GNU doesn't though[1], as apparently it's a risk > someone can just copy your file w/o reading the license. Apache for > example says 'only one copy of the license is needed per distribution'. > > Frankly I doubt anyone with the intention of copying our code would do > so without reading the LICENSE file in the repo, we can live with that > 'risk'. > > My friend 'Sed s///g' wants to take that job. > > [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LicenseCopyOnly > > > > > David > > > >

daviddavis · May 4, 2015, 5:04pm

Two more things I wanted to bring up.

A number of Katello projects don't have licenses in the file. This includes our CLI (hammer-cli-katello). Why does katello have per-file licenses but not our CLI? How do we decide if a new project will have per-file licensing?
A number of katello files don't have licenses. These tend to be ones related to foreman. Grepping around, I see about 20% of files in katello don't have licenses. Why do some files have licenses and others do not? What is the rule around this? Here are some examples from our lib directory:

github.com

Katello/katello/blob/master/lib/katello/engine.rb

module Katello
  class Engine < ::Rails::Engine
    isolate_namespace Katello

    initializer 'katello.selective_params_parser', :before => :build_middleware_stack do |app|
      require 'katello/prevent_json_parsing'
      app.middleware.insert_after(
        Rack::MethodOverride,
        Katello::PreventJsonParsing,
        ->(env) { env['PATH_INFO'] =~ /consumers/ && env['PATH_INFO'] =~ /profile|packages/ }
      )
    end

    initializer 'katello.mount_engine', :after => :build_middleware_stack do |app|
      app.routes_reloader.paths << "#{Katello::Engine.root}/config/routes/mount_engine.rb"
    end

    initializer 'katello.load_default_settings', :before => :load_config_initializers do
      default_settings = {
        :use_pulp => true,

This file has been truncated. show original

https://github.com/Katello/katello/blob/master/lib/katello/actions/actions.rb

github.com

Katello/katello/blob/master/test/katello_test_helper.rb

require 'simplecov'
require 'simplecov-rcov'

require 'test_helper'
require 'factory_bot_rails'
require "webmock/minitest"
require "mocha/setup"
require 'set'

SimpleCov.formatters = [
  SimpleCov::Formatter::RcovFormatter,
  SimpleCov::Formatter::HTMLFormatter
]

SimpleCov.start do
  filters.clear
  add_filter do |src|
    !src.filename.include?('/plugin/app/') && !src.filename.include?('/plugin/lib/')
  end
end

This file has been truncated. show original

https://github.com/Katello/katello/blob/master/test/katello_test_runner.rb

I think that removing the licenses in files is the best solution. It'd be the most consistent solution across the foreman and katello projects. That said, I'm willing to hear alternative solutions if someone can establish a rule around which files get licenses.

David

···

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jesus M. Rodriguez" > To: foreman-dev@googlegroups.com > Sent: Friday, May 1, 2015 7:18:14 PM > Subject: Re: [foreman-dev] License notices in Katello > > On Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 3:21:07 AM UTC-4, Daniel Lobato wrote: > > > > On 04/29, David Davis wrote: > > > Unlike foreman and other foreman plugins, Katello has copyright notices > > at the top of each file. These are an inconvenience to add and a pain to > > maintain (due to having to update the year). I'd recommend we phase these > > out of Katello projects. Our files are never distributed individually so we > > should just rely on the LICENSE file in the root of each repo to contain > > licensing information. To this end, I propose these rules: > > > > > > 1. When creating a new file, don't add a copyright notice to the > > beginning of the file > > > 2. If you're working in a file and changing a lot of code, consider > > removing the copyright notice > > > > > > I think the second rule is somewhat optional and up to each developer's > > discretion. > > > > > > Thoughts? > > I agree with that 100%. GNU doesn't though[1], as apparently it's a risk > > someone can just copy your file w/o reading the license. Apache for > > example says 'only one copy of the license is needed per distribution'. > > > > Frankly I doubt anyone with the intention of copying our code would do > > so without reading the LICENSE file in the repo, we can live with that > > 'risk'. > > > > My friend 'Sed s///g' wants to take that job. > > > > [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LicenseCopyOnly > > > > > > > > David > > > > > > > > -1 I vote to keep them. Configure your editor to always add them when you > create a new file. A simple script can replace the year in the entire repo > quite easily. Just because one app does it does not mean everyone does it. > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NoticeInSourceFile > > jesus > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "foreman-dev" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to foreman-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >

Mike_McCune · May 5, 2015, 5:09am

the threat and worry of an individual file being copied out of our repos
and being re-used in some other project isn't worth the boilerplate
lines and effort to maintain.

If someone wanted to re-use the file in a license violating way, they
could just remove it and go about their way. They would be in violation
but they probably don't really care at that point.

+1 to removing them.

···

On 05/04/2015 10:04 AM, David Davis wrote: > Two more things I wanted to bring up. > > 1. A number of Katello projects don't have licenses in the file. This includes our CLI (hammer-cli-katello). Why does katello have per-file licenses but not our CLI? How do we decide if a new project will have per-file licensing? > > 2. A number of katello files don't have licenses. These tend to be ones related to foreman. Grepping around, I see about 20% of files in katello don't have licenses. Why do some files have licenses and others do not? What is the rule around this? Here are some examples from our lib directory: > > https://github.com/Katello/katello/blob/master/lib/katello/engine.rb > https://github.com/Katello/katello/blob/master/lib/katello/actions/actions.rb > https://github.com/Katello/katello/blob/master/test/katello_test_helper.rb > https://github.com/Katello/katello/blob/master/test/katello_test_runner.rb > > I think that removing the licenses in files is the best solution. It'd be the most consistent solution across the foreman and katello projects. That said, I'm willing to hear alternative solutions if someone can establish a rule around which files get licenses. > > David > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Jesus M. Rodriguez" > > To: foreman-dev@googlegroups.com > > Sent: Friday, May 1, 2015 7:18:14 PM > > Subject: Re: [foreman-dev] License notices in Katello > > > > On Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 3:21:07 AM UTC-4, Daniel Lobato wrote: > >> > >> On 04/29, David Davis wrote: > >> > Unlike foreman and other foreman plugins, Katello has copyright notices > >> at the top of each file. These are an inconvenience to add and a pain to > >> maintain (due to having to update the year). I'd recommend we phase these > >> out of Katello projects. Our files are never distributed individually so we > >> should just rely on the LICENSE file in the root of each repo to contain > >> licensing information. To this end, I propose these rules: > >> > > >> > 1. When creating a new file, don't add a copyright notice to the > >> beginning of the file > >> > 2. If you're working in a file and changing a lot of code, consider > >> removing the copyright notice > >> > > >> > I think the second rule is somewhat optional and up to each developer's > >> discretion. > >> > > >> > Thoughts? > >> I agree with that 100%. GNU doesn't though[1], as apparently it's a risk > >> someone can just copy your file w/o reading the license. Apache for > >> example says 'only one copy of the license is needed per distribution'. > >> > >> Frankly I doubt anyone with the intention of copying our code would do > >> so without reading the LICENSE file in the repo, we can live with that > >> 'risk'. > >> > >> My friend 'Sed s///g' wants to take that job. > >> > >> [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LicenseCopyOnly > >> > >> > > >> > David > >> > > >> > >> > > -1 I vote to keep them. Configure your editor to always add them when you > > create a new file. A simple script can replace the year in the entire repo > > quite easily. Just because one app does it does not mean everyone does it. > > > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NoticeInSourceFile > > > > jesus > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "foreman-dev" group. > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > > email to foreman-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > >

daviddavis · May 6, 2015, 9:44pm

FYI, I have started going through and removing the license headers from files in Katello so if you have a PR conflict, this could very likely be the cause. Also, if your PR contains new files, please be sure to remove the license headers.

From now on, we'll no longer be using these per-file licenses. It's also important to remember to put a LICENSE file in the top directory of any new project since there will no longer be any per-file license info.

If anyone thinks of anything else, please let me know. Thanks.

David

···

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mike McCune" > To: foreman-dev@googlegroups.com > Cc: "David Davis" > Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2015 1:09:37 AM > Subject: Re: [foreman-dev] License notices in Katello > > the threat and worry of an individual file being copied out of our repos > and being re-used in some other project isn't worth the boilerplate > lines and effort to maintain. > > If someone wanted to re-use the file in a license violating way, they > could just remove it and go about their way. They would be in violation > but they probably don't really care at that point. > > +1 to removing them. > > On 05/04/2015 10:04 AM, David Davis wrote: > > Two more things I wanted to bring up. > > > > 1. A number of Katello projects don't have licenses in the file. This > > includes our CLI (hammer-cli-katello). Why does katello have per-file > > licenses but not our CLI? How do we decide if a new project will have > > per-file licensing? > > > > 2. A number of katello files don't have licenses. These tend to be ones > > related to foreman. Grepping around, I see about 20% of files in katello > > don't have licenses. Why do some files have licenses and others do not? > > What is the rule around this? Here are some examples from our lib > > directory: > > > > https://github.com/Katello/katello/blob/master/lib/katello/engine.rb > > https://github.com/Katello/katello/blob/master/lib/katello/actions/actions.rb > > https://github.com/Katello/katello/blob/master/test/katello_test_helper.rb > > https://github.com/Katello/katello/blob/master/test/katello_test_runner.rb > > > > I think that removing the licenses in files is the best solution. It'd be > > the most consistent solution across the foreman and katello projects. That > > said, I'm willing to hear alternative solutions if someone can establish a > > rule around which files get licenses. > > > > David > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Jesus M. Rodriguez" > > > To: foreman-dev@googlegroups.com > > > Sent: Friday, May 1, 2015 7:18:14 PM > > > Subject: Re: [foreman-dev] License notices in Katello > > > > > > On Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 3:21:07 AM UTC-4, Daniel Lobato wrote: > > >> > > >> On 04/29, David Davis wrote: > > >> > Unlike foreman and other foreman plugins, Katello has copyright > > >> > notices > > >> at the top of each file. These are an inconvenience to add and a pain > > >> to > > >> maintain (due to having to update the year). I'd recommend we phase > > >> these > > >> out of Katello projects. Our files are never distributed individually > > >> so we > > >> should just rely on the LICENSE file in the root of each repo to > > >> contain > > >> licensing information. To this end, I propose these rules: > > >> > > > >> > 1. When creating a new file, don't add a copyright notice to the > > >> beginning of the file > > >> > 2. If you're working in a file and changing a lot of code, consider > > >> removing the copyright notice > > >> > > > >> > I think the second rule is somewhat optional and up to each > > >> > developer's > > >> discretion. > > >> > > > >> > Thoughts? > > >> I agree with that 100%. GNU doesn't though[1], as apparently it's a > > >> risk > > >> someone can just copy your file w/o reading the license. Apache for > > >> example says 'only one copy of the license is needed per distribution'. > > >> > > >> Frankly I doubt anyone with the intention of copying our code would do > > >> so without reading the LICENSE file in the repo, we can live with that > > >> 'risk'. > > >> > > >> My friend 'Sed s///g' wants to take that job. > > >> > > >> [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LicenseCopyOnly > > >> > > >> > > > >> > David > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > -1 I vote to keep them. Configure your editor to always add them when you > > > create a new file. A simple script can replace the year in the entire > > > repo > > > quite easily. Just because one app does it does not mean everyone does > > > it. > > > > > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NoticeInSourceFile > > > > > > jesus > > > > > > -- > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > > "foreman-dev" group. > > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > > > email to foreman-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "foreman-dev" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to foreman-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >