-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 557
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Create NOTICE #992
Create NOTICE #992
Conversation
@eckelcu Why? If we do that we should include the Apache2 notice right below that as all the code in here is under the Apache2 license. Also Spotify only is a relatively small part of the code at this point. |
This is an attempt to satisfy this requirement of applying the Apache 2.0 license to your code, https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0#apply Admittedly, it would be best to add the Apache 2.0 license boilerplate to every source file, but short of doing that, I am proposing to identify the copyright owner in a single NOTICE file. I saw the Spotify copyright in some other files, e.g. https://github.com/napalm-automation/napalm/blob/develop/napalm/base/base.py, so I went with that. |
Here is an example from Apache of a notice file https://apache.org/licenses/example-NOTICE.txt |
Okay, we should also probably add the set of committers to it as well (as Spotify contributed very little of the code at this point). DBarroso has committed a lot, but I think most of it was probably post spotify. |
Checking in here @eckelcu, any chance to update as per Kirk's suggestion? |
Happy too. I have updated as suggested @ktbyers @mirceaulinic |
@@ -0,0 +1,7 @@ | |||
napalm | |||
Copyright 2015 Spotify AB. All rights reserved. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is a matter I thought about it, seems still unclear.
What about adding another line here like:
Copyright 2016-2020 NAPALM Automation Team. All rights reserved.
Any thoughts @ktbyers @dbarrosop?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is there should be a single copyright notice only and that identifies the copyright owner at the time the work was first published. The owner should be a legal entity (a person, their employer, an organization, etc.)
I am no lawyer either and I have no strong opinons but I don't think a NOTICE file is needed. Apache 2 license only requires a LICENSE file in the root of the project and the rest of the content, unless specified otherwise, inherits this LICENSE. From the LICENSE itself:
In any case, I am not against adding it if that pleases some stubborn lawyer at some stubborn firm working for a stubborn enterprise :D |
No description provided.