Re: [PATCH v2] scripts/ci: license as MIT

[Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@redhat.com>]

On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 6:44 PM William Roberts <bill.c.roberts@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 11:31 AM Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 5:14 PM <bill.c.roberts@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > From: William Roberts <william.c.roberts@intel.com>
> > >
> > > License the ci scripts with a permissive, OSI approved license, such as
> > > MIT.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: William Roberts <william.c.roberts@intel.com>
> > > ---
> > >  v1: Apache 2.0
> > >  v2: MIT
> > >
> > >  scripts/ci/LICENSE               | 7 +++++++
> > >  scripts/ci/fedora-test-runner.sh | 2 +-
> > >  scripts/ci/travis-kvm-setup.sh   | 2 +-
> > >  3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >  create mode 100644 scripts/ci/LICENSE
> > >
> > > diff --git a/scripts/ci/LICENSE b/scripts/ci/LICENSE
> > > new file mode 100644
> > > index 000000000000..6cd7b7924ef9
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/scripts/ci/LICENSE
> > > @@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
> > > +Copyright <YEAR> <COPYRIGHT HOLDER>
>
> You don't actually need them. They are often never updated anyways
> after the initial. I can just drop that line, wget + git add.
>
> >
> > You should probably put an actual year/name here?
> >
> > > +
> > > +Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
> > > +
> > > +The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
> > > +
> > > +THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
> > > diff --git a/scripts/ci/fedora-test-runner.sh b/scripts/ci/fedora-test-runner.sh
> > > index 569723387f6b..0aaba87c421b 100755
> > > --- a/scripts/ci/fedora-test-runner.sh
> > > +++ b/scripts/ci/fedora-test-runner.sh
> > > @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
> > >  #!/usr/bin/env bash
> > > -
> > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
> >
> > As I said in the v1 thread, also the individual files should contain a
> > copyright line in addition to the SPDX line. See:
> > https://matija.suklje.name/how-and-why-to-properly-write-copyright-statements-in-your-code#why-have-the-copyright-statement
>
> You don't actually need them and they just clutter the code and as a
> policy, I don't participate in adding to the problem of these big
> blocks
> of copyright statements that need to be maintained and grow per
> contributor. I can just drop the SPDX identifiers, as the LICENSE file
> applies to everything.
>
> With version control, the issues as described by that author are less
> of a problem. We can easily
> trace from whom, by how and when code was modified for any legal
> issues if they were to arise.
>
> We can just keep the LICENSE file, drop the SPDX identifiers and I
> would be 100% in-line with that libselinux is currently doing.

I tend to disagree, but I can live with it if you want to leave it
out. So let me ACK this patch and I'll just remove the template
"Copyright" line from the LICENSE file when applying.

Acked-by: Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@redhat.com>

-- 
Ondrej Mosnacek
Software Engineer, Platform Security - SELinux kernel
Red Hat, Inc.