Copyright header for localedata files contributed under DCO

Copyright header for localedata files contributed under DCO

[Florian Weimer]

The localedata files currently contain this:

% This file is part of the GNU C Library and contains locale data.
% The Free Software Foundation does not claim any copyright interest
% in the locale data contained in this file.  The foregoing does not
% affect the license of the GNU C Library as a whole.  It does not
% exempt you from the conditions of the license if your use would
% otherwise be governed by that license.

I think the wording is less than satisfying because it's unclear whether
the patch submitter (or someone else) retains any copyright claims to
the file.  With localedata patches submitted under the DCO, this becomes
even more confusing.

Therefore, I proposed to

comment_char %
escape_char /

% Copyright The GNU Toolchain Authors.
% This file is part of the GNU C Library.
% 
% The GNU C Library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
% modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public
% License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either
% version 2.1 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
% 
% The GNU C Library is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
% but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
% MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the GNU
% Lesser General Public License for more details.
% 
% You should have received a copy of the GNU Lesser General Public
% License along with the GNU C Library; if not, see
% <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.


The main reason is to keep the contribution process simple.  For
example, we do not need to argue with the submitter whether they
actually can disclaim copyright or database protection rights.

Since the FSF disclaims copyright, we can also apply this header to
mixed FSF/DCO files once the need arises.

Thanks,
Florian

Re: Copyright header for localedata files contributed under DCO

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2232 bytes --]

On 03 Sep 2021 12:37, Florian Weimer via Libc-alpha wrote:
> The localedata files currently contain this:
> 
> % This file is part of the GNU C Library and contains locale data.
> % The Free Software Foundation does not claim any copyright interest
> % in the locale data contained in this file.  The foregoing does not
> % affect the license of the GNU C Library as a whole.  It does not
> % exempt you from the conditions of the license if your use would
> % otherwise be governed by that license.
> 
> I think the wording is less than satisfying because it's unclear whether
> the patch submitter (or someone else) retains any copyright claims to
> the file.  With localedata patches submitted under the DCO, this becomes
> even more confusing.
> 
> Therefore, I proposed to
> 
> comment_char %
> escape_char /
> 
> % Copyright The GNU Toolchain Authors.
> % This file is part of the GNU C Library.
> % 
> % The GNU C Library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
> % modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public
> % License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either
> % version 2.1 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
> % 
> % The GNU C Library is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
> % but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
> % MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the GNU
> % Lesser General Public License for more details.
> % 
> % You should have received a copy of the GNU Lesser General Public
> % License along with the GNU C Library; if not, see
> % <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
> 
> 
> The main reason is to keep the contribution process simple.  For
> example, we do not need to argue with the submitter whether they
> actually can disclaim copyright or database protection rights.
> 
> Since the FSF disclaims copyright, we can also apply this header to
> mixed FSF/DCO files once the need arises.

imo this is going in the wrong direction

if we want to enforce it, we can add a test to check the header of the file.
if a contributor doesn't agree, then we don't accept their patch.  i don't
see why we need to bend over backwards for this.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: Copyright header for localedata files contributed under DCO

[Florian Weimer]

* Mike Frysinger:

> On 03 Sep 2021 12:37, Florian Weimer via Libc-alpha wrote:
>> The localedata files currently contain this:
>> 
>> % This file is part of the GNU C Library and contains locale data.
>> % The Free Software Foundation does not claim any copyright interest
>> % in the locale data contained in this file.  The foregoing does not
>> % affect the license of the GNU C Library as a whole.  It does not
>> % exempt you from the conditions of the license if your use would
>> % otherwise be governed by that license.
>> 
>> I think the wording is less than satisfying because it's unclear whether
>> the patch submitter (or someone else) retains any copyright claims to
>> the file.  With localedata patches submitted under the DCO, this becomes
>> even more confusing.
>> 
>> Therefore, I proposed to
>> 
>> comment_char %
>> escape_char /
>> 
>> % Copyright The GNU Toolchain Authors.
>> % This file is part of the GNU C Library.
>> % 
>> % The GNU C Library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
>> % modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public
>> % License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either
>> % version 2.1 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
>> % 
>> % The GNU C Library is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
>> % but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
>> % MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the GNU
>> % Lesser General Public License for more details.
>> % 
>> % You should have received a copy of the GNU Lesser General Public
>> % License along with the GNU C Library; if not, see
>> % <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
>> 
>> 
>> The main reason is to keep the contribution process simple.  For
>> example, we do not need to argue with the submitter whether they
>> actually can disclaim copyright or database protection rights.
>> 
>> Since the FSF disclaims copyright, we can also apply this header to
>> mixed FSF/DCO files once the need arises.
>
> imo this is going in the wrong direction
>
> if we want to enforce it, we can add a test to check the header of the file.
> if a contributor doesn't agree, then we don't accept their patch.  i don't
> see why we need to bend over backwards for this.

Do you mean we should accept patches without FSF copyright assignment
that carry the FSF disclaimer?

The problem is that the FSF disclaimer does not mean anything (and is
therefore very misleading) if the patch has nothing to do with the FSF.

Thanks,
Florian

Re: Copyright header for localedata files contributed under DCO

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2880 bytes --]

On 03 Sep 2021 22:55, Florian Weimer via Libc-alpha wrote:
> * Mike Frysinger:
> 
> > On 03 Sep 2021 12:37, Florian Weimer via Libc-alpha wrote:
> >> The localedata files currently contain this:
> >> 
> >> % This file is part of the GNU C Library and contains locale data.
> >> % The Free Software Foundation does not claim any copyright interest
> >> % in the locale data contained in this file.  The foregoing does not
> >> % affect the license of the GNU C Library as a whole.  It does not
> >> % exempt you from the conditions of the license if your use would
> >> % otherwise be governed by that license.
> >> 
> >> I think the wording is less than satisfying because it's unclear whether
> >> the patch submitter (or someone else) retains any copyright claims to
> >> the file.  With localedata patches submitted under the DCO, this becomes
> >> even more confusing.
> >> 
> >> Therefore, I proposed to
> >> 
> >> comment_char %
> >> escape_char /
> >> 
> >> % Copyright The GNU Toolchain Authors.
> >> % This file is part of the GNU C Library.
> >> % 
> >> % The GNU C Library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
> >> % modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public
> >> % License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either
> >> % version 2.1 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
> >> % 
> >> % The GNU C Library is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
> >> % but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
> >> % MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the GNU
> >> % Lesser General Public License for more details.
> >> % 
> >> % You should have received a copy of the GNU Lesser General Public
> >> % License along with the GNU C Library; if not, see
> >> % <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> The main reason is to keep the contribution process simple.  For
> >> example, we do not need to argue with the submitter whether they
> >> actually can disclaim copyright or database protection rights.
> >> 
> >> Since the FSF disclaims copyright, we can also apply this header to
> >> mixed FSF/DCO files once the need arises.
> >
> > imo this is going in the wrong direction
> >
> > if we want to enforce it, we can add a test to check the header of the file.
> > if a contributor doesn't agree, then we don't accept their patch.  i don't
> > see why we need to bend over backwards for this.
> 
> Do you mean we should accept patches without FSF copyright assignment
> that carry the FSF disclaimer?
> 
> The problem is that the FSF disclaimer does not mean anything (and is
> therefore very misleading) if the patch has nothing to do with the FSF.

i'm saying the files should disclaim all copyright.  the point is to convey
that these are data files where copyright shouldn't be relevant.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: Copyright header for localedata files contributed under DCO

[Florian Weimer]

* Mike Frysinger:

> i'm saying the files should disclaim all copyright.  the point is to convey
> that these are data files where copyright shouldn't be relevant.

That's a very U.S.-centric perspective.  Many countries do not allow
authors to disclaim copyright (at best such a declaration would
interpreted as something like CC0).  And many countries also offer some
kind of protection to organized collections of facts.

And I don't want to create a third type of contributions.

Thanks,
Florian

Re: Copyright header for localedata files contributed under DCO

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 9/5/21 1:17 AM, Florian Weimer via Libc-alpha wrote:
> * Mike Frysinger:
> 
>> i'm saying the files should disclaim all copyright.  the point is to convey
>> that these are data files where copyright shouldn't be relevant.
> 
> That's a very U.S.-centric perspective.  Many countries do not allow
> authors to disclaim copyright (at best such a declaration would
> interpreted as something like CC0).  And many countries also offer some
> kind of protection to organized collections of facts.
> 
> And I don't want to create a third type of contributions.

I agree with Florian.

We should not ask for contributors to disclaim copyright.

There should be no additional process steps for accepting
contributions to locales under DCO.

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.

Re: Copyright header for localedata files contributed under DCO

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1445 bytes --]

On 05 Sep 2021 07:17, Florian Weimer via Libc-alpha wrote:
> * Mike Frysinger:
> > i'm saying the files should disclaim all copyright.  the point is to convey
> > that these are data files where copyright shouldn't be relevant.
> 
> That's a very U.S.-centric perspective.  Many countries do not allow
> authors to disclaim copyright (at best such a declaration would
> interpreted as something like CC0).  And many countries also offer some
> kind of protection to organized collections of facts.

i'm aware of the thorny issues that some countries don't understand the concept
of public domain.  that is orthogonal to facts can't be copyrighted in the first
place.  iiuc, the FSF position on these files is that these are a list of facts
and as such, aren't eligble for copyright, so the notice at the top of the file
is making that clear (instead of the reasonable assumption that it's under the
top level COPYING* i.e. GPL-2 or LGPL-2).

i'll point out that these issues are not new.  it has always been this way, and
DCO doesn't really change it.

if you want to be super pessimistic and put something like CC0 on it, that's
fine, but we still need a check enforcing it.

> And I don't want to create a third type of contributions.

you've lost me.  requiring certain files be licensed in a certain way is not a
new issue.  we already won't accept contributions if people try to use something
like WTFPL.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: Copyright header for localedata files contributed under DCO

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 9/3/21 6:37 AM, Florian Weimer via Libc-alpha wrote:
> The localedata files currently contain this:
> 
> % This file is part of the GNU C Library and contains locale data.
> % The Free Software Foundation does not claim any copyright interest
> % in the locale data contained in this file.  The foregoing does not
> % affect the license of the GNU C Library as a whole.  It does not
> % exempt you from the conditions of the license if your use would
> % otherwise be governed by that license.
> 
> I think the wording is less than satisfying because it's unclear whether
> the patch submitter (or someone else) retains any copyright claims to
> the file.  With localedata patches submitted under the DCO, this becomes
> even more confusing.

I agree, with DCO there could be additional copyright authors.
 
> Therefore, I proposed to
> 
> comment_char %
> escape_char /
> 
> % Copyright The GNU Toolchain Authors.

This is the only important line that is required IMO.

> % This file is part of the GNU C Library.
> % 
> % The GNU C Library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
> % modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public
> % License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either
> % version 2.1 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
> % 
> % The GNU C Library is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
> % but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
> % MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the GNU
> % Lesser General Public License for more details.
> % 
> % You should have received a copy of the GNU Lesser General Public
> % License along with the GNU C Library; if not, see
> % <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
 
This looks good to me and it adds license information.
 
> The main reason is to keep the contribution process simple.  For
> example, we do not need to argue with the submitter whether they
> actually can disclaim copyright or database protection rights.

Agreed.

> Since the FSF disclaims copyright, we can also apply this header to
> mixed FSF/DCO files once the need arises.

As a project stewards I think you're taking this in the right direction.

Please feel free to involve min the review of patches that include the
new header.

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.

Re: Copyright header for localedata files contributed under DCO

[Maxim Kuvyrkov]

> On 6 Sep 2021, at 17:04, Carlos O'Donell via Libc-alpha <libc-alpha@sourceware.org> wrote:
> 
> On 9/3/21 6:37 AM, Florian Weimer via Libc-alpha wrote:
>> The localedata files currently contain this:
>> 
>> % This file is part of the GNU C Library and contains locale data.
>> % The Free Software Foundation does not claim any copyright interest
>> % in the locale data contained in this file.  The foregoing does not
>> % affect the license of the GNU C Library as a whole.  It does not
>> % exempt you from the conditions of the license if your use would
>> % otherwise be governed by that license.
>> 
>> I think the wording is less than satisfying because it's unclear whether
>> the patch submitter (or someone else) retains any copyright claims to
>> the file.  With localedata patches submitted under the DCO, this becomes
>> even more confusing.
> 
> I agree, with DCO there could be additional copyright authors.
> 
>> Therefore, I proposed to
>> 
>> comment_char %
>> escape_char /
>> 
>> % Copyright The GNU Toolchain Authors.
> 
> This is the only important line that is required IMO.
> 
>> % This file is part of the GNU C Library.
>> % 
>> % The GNU C Library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
>> % modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public
>> % License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either
>> % version 2.1 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
>> % 
>> % The GNU C Library is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
>> % but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
>> % MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the GNU
>> % Lesser General Public License for more details.
>> % 
>> % You should have received a copy of the GNU Lesser General Public
>> % License along with the GNU C Library; if not, see
>> % <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
> 
> This looks good to me and it adds license information.
> 
>> The main reason is to keep the contribution process simple.  For
>> example, we do not need to argue with the submitter whether they
>> actually can disclaim copyright or database protection rights.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
>> Since the FSF disclaims copyright, we can also apply this header to
>> mixed FSF/DCO files once the need arises.
> 
> As a project stewards I think you're taking this in the right direction.

I agree with Florian’s suggestion.

I see good points in Mike’s arguments, and, all other things equal, it would be good just disclaim copyright on locale data.  However, to improve on the immediate situation of very confusing copyright wording, it is prudent to say "Copyright The GNU Toolchain Authors.” and move on.  If we as "GNU Toolchain Authors" community will ever feel a pressing need to disclaim copyright later -- we can.

Regards,

--
Maxim Kuvyrkov
https://www.linaro.org