geopython
clarify copyright in Dockerfile
FYI here at the FOSS4G 2019 code sprint, we are working to make GHC an OSGeo Community project. As part of the review, the following was asked for clarification:
https://github.com/geopython/GeoHealthCheck/blob/master/Dockerfile#L6
(note the original PR was in #40).
@yjacolin what did you want to use as a license for your contributions? Note that GHC is MIT as a rule, but looking for your input/clarification.
Bit puzzled with this issue. I added the comments in the Dockerfile just to acknowledge @yjacolin for providing the first version of the Dockerfile via a PR within this repo (and I added me as a maintainer) though these Dockerfile labels are arbitrarily. IMHO one implicitly uses/acknowledges the license of the (GHC) project to which one contributes.
Suggest to keep open in the context of possible OSGeo incubation moving forward.
..Tom
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 27, 2019, at 10:16, Just van den Broecke [email protected] wrote:
Hmm, what to do here, close and re-open when needed?
— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.
Looking at https://github.com/geopython/GeoHealthCheck/blob/master/Dockerfile#L6 you have:
Credits to yjacolin for providing first versions
If you want to make it explicit:
# (c) 2019 Jacolin Yves
As others make contributions:
# (c) 2019 Jacolin Yves and others.
You really just want to be clear about copyright as it is the stick we use to enforce open source.
Hmm, maybe I shouldn't have added the "Credits...first versions" sentence. Intention was to say something nice as I thoroughly moved/refactored the Dockerfile back then. I mean: the first versions of the Dockerfile were AFAIK developed from scratch all in the context of this repo (not donated or something) and its (MIT) license: see history , then I moved it to the top dir (for DockerHub builds requiring that back then) and history was proceeding.
I mean: each and every file here starts at some point in time and is further developed since. Then there would be no end to giving credits. (c) means copyright, right? Think that is not applicable at all. Still don't understand what the issue is...possibly "providing" should be "developing"?
Hello,
If it can help in any way, I am ok with any licence you want to choose. It seems however better to use the same as the GHC project. Thanks @justb4 for the acknowledge :)
Yves
