[DISQ-8] Add license header, empty CONTRIBUTORS.md file. #13
Conversation
LICENSE
Outdated
| @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ | |||
| MIT License | |||
|
|
|||
| Copyright (c) 2018 nameless-gos | |||
| Copyright (c) 2018 disq-bio contributors | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Shouldn't it say "DISQ AUTHORS" instead? This repo has diferent authors than disq-bio organization, and with authors we pinpoint to the AUTHORS file.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it is the project "Disq" (not it is not all caps).
LICENSE_header.txt
Outdated
| * | ||
| * MIT License | ||
| * | ||
| * Copyright (c) 2018 disq-bio contributors |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I was going by the suggestions in #8.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I thought that we said "[project name] AUTHORS", and the project is DISQ in the DISTQ-BIO organization. Otherwise, members of the whole organization holds the copyright...
| @@ -0,0 +1,25 @@ | |||
| /** | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, in ADAM we have a build rule that confirms every source file has a proper license header.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So every file should include the license header? That it's a bit redundant, but fine to me...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, it's pretty standard to do this.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I know that it is kind of standard, but I always doubt about adding it or not because of redundancy and easier out-of-date years when updating. If there is a rule for checking that, I am not oposed to it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why not just specify in the root that all code is under the given license? I've never understood the need for individual license headers in every file, it's just a source of hassle and inconsistency. A build rule helps but it seems better to just say "all files in this repo are under this license".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I've found lots of code "imported" into other projects without properly adhering to the license. If there is a license header on every file, it makes it explicit to the "importer" that they are breaking the license, having to remove the text of the license header.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I lean towards having a header for exactly this reason.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hmn. I see the point there, but it still seems like more hassle for us than there is benefit.
AUTHORS
Outdated
| @@ -0,0 +1 @@ | |||
| Contributors to disq-bio: | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I recommend something with an explanation (sligthly modified from htsjdk-next-beta):
# This is the official list of DISQ authors for copyright purposes.
#
# The AUTHORS file lists the copyright holders.
# For example, employees from a company are not listed here, because the company holds the copyright.
# This file should be updated whenever a new contributor merges their first commit.
# Names should be added to this file as
# Organization <webpage> - Contact Person <email>
# Individual Name <email address or website>
# Please keep the list sorted alphabetically, companies/organizations first, individuals second.
Organizations:
Individuals:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hold up, I don't understand what this line means:
For example, employees from a company are not listed here, because the company holds the copyright.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So in htsjdk-next-beta, this line is specific to Broad Institute and it reads: "For example, Broad Institute employees are not listed here, because Broad Institute holds the copyright." I just tried to generalize, becasue no company is yet in the authors list. If you come up with a better phrasing, I'm fine with it too.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I really really don't like this, to the point that I'm considering giving up on this whole effort. I strongly believe the copyright has to be assigned to the project itself.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What's the concern exactly? If the code is licensed under MIT, it permits essentially anything except for relicensing under a more liberal license without any copyright assignment.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The copyright is hold by the project itself and its authors, which are people who contributed to the project (we should decide if with code only or other types of contribution can apply).
A recognizition model in the AUTHORS file is a good way to encourage contributions.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@heuermh I'm sorry you feel this way - I thought we were proceeding well so far since we had come to some consensus over copyright (e.g. #8 (comment)). Anyway, I hope you can reconsider.
|
Hello @magicDGS, I believe I've addressed review comments in the last commit. Could you revisit your review? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
One comment not blocking the merge and a final request before merging: could you maybe rename the AUTHORS file to CONTRIBUTORS? Otherwise, the license and the file should say "Contributors to Disq" and "Disq contributors", respectively, to be consistent with the phrasing.
After that, LGTM 👍 (feel free to merge by yourself)
AUTHORS
Outdated
| @@ -0,0 +1 @@ | |||
| Contributors to Disq: | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We should add to the contributing guidelines how the name "Disq" should be written in files mentioning it: so disallow "DISQ", "distq" or depending on the file using it (java class, etc.).
Sure, that sounds fine. I'll do that in a commit and force push to squash. |
heuermh
changed the title
|
Thank you, @tomwhite |
|
Thank you! |
Fixes #8.