Also to add, I don't necessarily have a problem with adding a license to the conf files but if we do so in my view Apache 2 is not the ideal license for reasons stated earlier. If we want to go down this route then an artistic license such as CC-BY (or any of its variants) would be more appropriate.
On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 10:54 AM PJ Fanning <[email protected]> wrote: > Most Apache projects appear to put Apache license headers on virtually > every file in their source repositories, including: > * XML, YAML, etc. files that are used for runtime configuration > * Build scripts > * Shell scripts > * markdown files > > I have seen no evidence that HOCON conf files need to be treated as an > exception, The Typesafe config lib seems to handle comments fine. > > If the general consensus is to leave the headers off, then that's ok. > Until the Incubator PMC members have a look, we will not really know > one way or the other. The Apache RAT check will list these conf files > as not having headers and this could lead to -1s on our releases. > > On Tue, 21 Feb 2023 at 10:12, Matthew Benedict de Detrich > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > DISCLAIMER: IANAL > > > > Recently some PR's/discussion has opened up on github regarding whether > we > > should be putting Apache Headers on configuration files (i.e. > > reference.conf files). As some people already know, we had to undergo a > > process to add the headers to source files but in my view putting the > > Apache header on configuration files is at best completely unnecessary > and > > in some cases can be harmful. For those not that familiar with typesafe > > reference.conf files, you can treat them the exact same way as Java > > .properties files. > > > > My reasoning is that configuration files are treated completely > > separately compared to source files, in this sense they are much more > akin > > to documentation rather than source of a project. The > > protections/stipulations provided by the Apache license definitely makes > > sense for source contents, but they can be overly excessive/restrictive > > when placed on a conf file and one example where this can cause problems > is > > cases like https://mariadb.com/kb/en/mariadb-configuration-file-license/ > . > > > > In summary the content in configuration files have the expectation to be > > copied and worked on (i.e. copying the base configuration file and > changing > > the default values is typical for users) and there shouldn't be any > > restrictions on this. Furthermore this content is not expressive enough > to > > be considered of value when it comes to things like copyright (I believe > > this is one of the major reasons why there is no Lightbend copyright > header > > for conf files). If the Lightbend header happened to already exist in the > > configuration files there would be sense in biting the bullet but since > > this is not the case to me I see it as preferable if we just leave the > conf > > files. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > -- > > > > Matthew de Detrich > > > > *Aiven Deutschland GmbH* > > > > Immanuelkirchstraße 26, 10405 Berlin > > > > Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 209739 B > > > > Geschäftsführer: Oskari Saarenmaa & Hannu Valtonen > > > > *m:* +491603708037 > > > > *w:* aiven.io *e:* [email protected] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > -- Matthew de Detrich *Aiven Deutschland GmbH* Immanuelkirchstraße 26, 10405 Berlin Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 209739 B Geschäftsführer: Oskari Saarenmaa & Hannu Valtonen *m:* +491603708037 *w:* aiven.io *e:* [email protected]
