Thanks for the input everyone. I put together a proposal with all of the
options put forth on this thread. Apologies if I missed one, if I did just
let me know.
https://github.com/geotools/geotools/wiki/Updates-to-Copyright-Header-Policy
Like I said before this proposal involves listing out in order of
preference the various options. Feel free to update the proposal or just
reply to this thread and I’ll happily make the update on your behalf.
Thanks!
-Justin
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 2:50 PM Jody Garnett <jody.garn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You asked where I was uncomfortable, not if it made sense :)
>
> --
> Jody Garnett
>
> On 25 April 2016 at 09:37, Justin Deoliveira <jdeol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I can see how the original date could be useful for cases like this but
>> have you ever seen a situation where something was marked (for example) (c)
>> 2010 and from 2010 to the current date of when you were doing the audit the
>> copyright changed in some meaningful way? I am of course not counting any
>> transfer of copyright to OSGeo, etc… since I would expect that to result in
>> a new copyright timestamp.
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 12:12 AM Jody Garnett <jody.garn...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The part that is making me uneasy is the few times I have done code
>>> audits on this codebase the headers were very useful. While I did have to
>>> duck out to git history on a few occasions it was a rare occurrence - in
>>> part because the team here has done a good job.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jody Garnett
>>>
>>> On 24 April 2016 at 08:13, Justin Deoliveira <jdeol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> What is it specifically that is making you uneasy? I thought Ben made a
>>>> pretty strong argument that any dates in the copyright don’t really mean
>>>> anything when it comes to actual legal stuff.
>>>>
>>>> Doing it periodically via a script does seem like a better compromise…
>>>> although from everything I have heard here I still don’t see why initial
>>>> creation date isn’t enough.
>>>>
>>>> Once this thread “quiets down” I’ll summarize all of the options that
>>>> folks have put forth and throw them into the proposal and we can vote for
>>>> the options we like best. Since there are a handful of options on the table
>>>> I think perhaps having people rank options 1,2,3 might work best.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 7:22 PM Jody Garnett <jody.garn...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yeah the longer I think about this one the more I am made
>>>>> uncomfortable. We would be back to "significant" changes needing the
>>>>> header updated -
>>>>>
>>>>> As an alternative wow do you feel about updating the headers once each
>>>>> year (via a script) so that individual pull requests are not held up?
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Jody Garnett
>>>>>
>>>>> On 22 April 2016 at 12:05, Justin Deoliveira <jdeol...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Cool. I'll write up a quick one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 1:01 PM Jody Garnett <jody.garn...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you would like to make that proposal we can update the developers
>>>>>>> guide and get it done ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Jody Garnett
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 22 April 2016 at 11:38, Justin Deoliveira <jdeol...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks Jody. That helps me understand.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My thought is that the day to day overhead is not worth being able
>>>>>>>> to rest assured that in 75 years GeoTools will still be in good
>>>>>>>> standing
>>>>>>>> with regard to copyright ;)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My vote would be to change to a process where the copyright is set
>>>>>>>> to the current year that the file is created or undergoes a major
>>>>>>>> overhaul/rewrite. I
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> $0.02
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 12:18 PM Andrea Aime <
>>>>>>>> andrea.a...@geo-solutions.it> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 8:06 PM, Jody Garnett <
>>>>>>>>> jody.garn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If the PMC wants to make this decision I would be -0, I
>>>>>>>>>> understand that it would assist with github pull requests, but I
>>>>>>>>>> feel we
>>>>>>>>>> would do so by cutting a corner.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't feel strongly either way, copyright updates can be
>>>>>>>>> automated (see Kevin's GeoServer script), but yeah, it's really
>>>>>>>>> annoying to
>>>>>>>>> require
>>>>>>>>> every single time a pull request comes in to update the copyright
>>>>>>>>> headers...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>>>> Andrea
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> ==
>>>>>>>>> GeoServer Professional Services from the experts! Visit
>>>>>>>>> http://goo.gl/it488V for more information.
>>>>>>>>> ==
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ing. Andrea Aime
>>>>>>>>> @geowolf
>>>>>>>>> Technical Lead
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> GeoSolutions S.A.S.
>>>>>>>>> Via di Montramito 3/A
>>>>>>>>> 55054 Massarosa (LU)
>>>>>>>>> phone: +39 0584 962313
>>>>>>>>> fax: +39 0584 1660272
>>>>>>>>> mob: +39 339 8844549
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://www.geo-solutions.it
>>>>>>>>> http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *AVVERTENZE AI SENSI DEL D.Lgs. 196/2003*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Le informazioni contenute in questo messaggio di posta elettronica
>>>>>>>>> e/o nel/i file/s allegato/i sono da considerarsi strettamente
>>>>>>>>> riservate. Il
>>>>>>>>> loro utilizzo è consentito esclusivamente al destinatario del
>>>>>>>>> messaggio,
>>>>>>>>> per le finalità indicate nel messaggio stesso. Qualora riceviate
>>>>>>>>> questo
>>>>>>>>> messaggio senza esserne il destinatario, Vi preghiamo cortesemente di
>>>>>>>>> darcene notizia via e-mail e di procedere alla distruzione del
>>>>>>>>> messaggio
>>>>>>>>> stesso, cancellandolo dal Vostro sistema. Conservare il messaggio
>>>>>>>>> stesso,
>>>>>>>>> divulgarlo anche in parte, distribuirlo ad altri soggetti, copiarlo,
>>>>>>>>> od
>>>>>>>>> utilizzarlo per finalità diverse, costituisce comportamento contrario
>>>>>>>>> ai
>>>>>>>>> principi dettati dal D.Lgs. 196/2003.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The information in this message and/or attachments, is intended
>>>>>>>>> solely for the attention and use of the named addressee(s) and may be
>>>>>>>>> confidential or proprietary in nature or covered by the provisions of
>>>>>>>>> privacy act (Legislative Decree June, 30 2003, no.196 - Italy's New
>>>>>>>>> Data
>>>>>>>>> Protection Code).Any use not in accord with its purpose, any
>>>>>>>>> disclosure,
>>>>>>>>> reproduction, copying, distribution, or either dissemination, either
>>>>>>>>> whole
>>>>>>>>> or partial, is strictly forbidden except previous formal approval of
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> named addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please
>>>>>>>>> contact
>>>>>>>>> immediately the sender by telephone, fax or e-mail and delete the
>>>>>>>>> information in this message that has been received in error. The
>>>>>>>>> sender
>>>>>>>>> does not give any warranty or accept liability as the content,
>>>>>>>>> accuracy or
>>>>>>>>> completeness of sent messages and accepts no responsibility for
>>>>>>>>> changes
>>>>>>>>> made after they were sent or for other risks which arise as a result
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> e-mail transmission, viruses, etc.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Find and fix application performance issues faster with Applications Manager
Applications Manager provides deep performance insights into multiple tiers of
your business applications. It resolves application problems quickly and
reduces your MTTR. Get your free trial!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/302982198;130105516;z
_______________________________________________
GeoTools-Devel mailing list
GeoTools-Devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
