[21:00:17] <@leio> Meeting time [21:00:25] <@leio> !proj council [21:00:25] <+willikins> (council@gentoo.org) dilfridge, k_f, leio, slyfox, ulm, whissi, williamh [21:00:34] <@leio> Agenda: https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/cbfb2008ad4b80dd78fd62c4b803fe20 [21:00:39] <@leio> 1. Roll call [21:00:41] -*- leio here [21:00:43] -*- slyfox here [21:00:44] -*- K_F here [21:00:46] -*- WilliamH here [21:00:46] -*- ulm here [21:00:48] -*- Whissi here [21:01:12] *** Mode #gentoo-council +v blueness by ChanServ [21:01:27] <@leio> dilfridge: ping [21:01:41] <@dilfridge> here [21:02:08] <@leio> Moving on with our packed schedule [21:02:16] <@leio> 2. Open bugs with council involvement [21:02:20] <@Whissi> Let's start with the easy one :p [21:02:25] <@leio> bug 637328 [21:02:28] <+willikins> leio: https://bugs.gentoo.org/637328 "GLEP 14 needs to be updated"; Documentation, GLEP Changes; IN_P; mgorny:security [21:02:31] <@Whissi> Security project didn't meet between last council meeting and today. So no progress here. :/ [21:02:42] -*- dilfridge kicks some security a... [21:03:07] <@ulm> dilfridge: 4th point of contact :) [21:03:11] <@K_F> if people stopped wasting time with requirements for copyright lines, there might be more time for other things :) [21:04:23] <@leio> Can we finally have news soon still? [21:04:46] <@K_F> we're discussing it, things are happening, things are not ready [21:05:03] <@leio> Is there a security meeting date set? [21:05:10] <@Whissi> No :D [21:05:14] <@K_F> no, but discussion is ongoing on alias anyways [21:06:16] <@leio> But that's not as efficient as everyone being able to discuss it in real time; anyways, next bug then.. [21:06:24] <@leio> bug 642072 [21:06:26] <+willikins> leio: https://bugs.gentoo.org/642072 "[Tracker] Copyright policy"; Gentoo Council, unspecified; IN_P; mgorny:council [21:06:30] <@leio> still just a tracker, I presume? [21:06:35] <@K_F> in many ways it is far _more_ efficient, as it allows more thought out discussion [21:06:43] <@K_F> but right.. [21:06:45] <@ulm> yes, still a tracker [21:06:57] <@dilfridge> we could start a security glep working group [21:07:17] <@leio> we can have more than one active working group? [21:07:40] <@leio> next up, bug 670702 [21:07:43] <+willikins> leio: https://bugs.gentoo.org/670702 "sys-apps/util-linux-2.33: Header does not comply with GLEP 76"; Gentoo Linux, Current packages; CONF; ulm:base-system [21:08:04] <@leio> I guess we can discuss some, but we aren't voting anything today, wasn't in time for agenda and people to properly prepare [21:08:20] <@ulm> right, I think we shouldn't take any action on it today [21:08:52] -*- ulm will resubmit for next month [21:08:53] <@WilliamH> robbat2's suggestion is interesting, see the end of the bug. [21:09:35] <@leio> yeah, 25 minutes ago hasn't really allowed for that yet [21:09:50] <@WilliamH> The way I see it is a tag in the commit with the copyright notice... [21:09:52] <@ulm> WilliamH: but would you be ok with using the simplified attribution, if your company was listed in an AUTHORS file? [21:10:17] <@WilliamH> I can't answer that. I can't speak for them. [21:11:23] <@leio> Have they approved GLEP 76? [21:11:39] <@WilliamH> I'm hearing that they *probably* wuld accept that. [21:11:44] <@WilliamH> would * [21:12:05] <@ulm> can you find that out until the december meeting? [21:12:32] <@leio> maybe they'd be happy with company e-mail in authors, instead of all this copyright notice stuff.. [21:12:41] <@ulm> basically it would be the chromium model [21:13:04] <+robbat2> leio: chromium model can have both company name AND author name in the AUTHORS file [21:13:18] <@leio> under "authors" I meant git commit author [21:13:19] <@WilliamH> I don't think I will be the one to ask, but put the information on the bug and we'll follow up. [21:14:09] <@ulm> WilliamH: it's already there, in robbat2's comments [21:14:21] <@leio> (they are currently using @gentoo.org as author for work time too) [21:14:22] <@dilfridge> err [21:14:34] <@dilfridge> anything that needs to be asked from a legal department [21:14:46] <@dilfridge> needs to be nicely packaged and ultra-clear [21:14:56] <@WilliamH> That's still a maybe without a definite answer from them. [21:15:06] <@dilfridge> pointing to a bug comment with n alternatives makes no sense [21:15:33] <@WilliamH> Using @sony.com is actually being discussed Leio [21:15:42] <@ulm> robbat2: could we talk later and work out a concrete proposal? [21:16:02] <+robbat2> (point here: simply @sony.com doesn't say which division of Sony holds the copyright) [21:16:46] <+robbat2> i'm ok to defer for further discussion, and let everybody continue to use multi-line attributions pending cleanup [21:16:47] <@dilfridge> (rolling eyes) which part of mordor precisely? [21:16:53] <@ulm> presumably would be company e-mail, plus Copyright: or Copyright-by: tag in the commit message [21:16:55] <@leio> I guess the AUTHORS file could say (with date ranges if needed) as a mapping, basically. But at that point that tag idea is probably simpler [21:16:55] <@K_F> robbat2: I could see that being relevant for subsidiaries, but if division I'm not sure if it matters [21:17:07] <@K_F> as the legal entity would be the same [21:17:19] <+robbat2> K_F: division/subsidiary becomes vague with megacorps [21:17:37] <@K_F> but it isn't really our problem to sort out, we can come up with something that works for us, then it is up to them to solve it internally [21:17:55] <@dilfridge> well you know how well this works from our current discussion [21:18:05] <@leio> so the takeaway here is that I can go and start adding my own company copyright notices below Gentoo Authors?.. [21:18:09] <+robbat2> until such time as it is decided, is everybody ok with multiline attribution? it's not just SIE adding it [21:18:17] <@ulm> leio: nope [21:18:35] <@leio> double standards? [21:18:44] <@dilfridge> I'm not too happy about it in either case. [21:18:46] -*- leio has his devils advocate hat on [21:18:57] <@ulm> you can replace Gentoo Authors by a traditional notice, and add your name to it [21:19:29] <@leio> but Gentoo Authors line + SIE line is what util-linux has. [21:19:41] <@ulm> but of course you SHOULDN'T (with RFC 2119 meaning) [21:19:42] <@dilfridge> I think right now the only question is "what do we precisely do until the next council meeting" [21:20:01] <@dilfridge> and if it's only that, I dont care [21:20:16] <@ulm> leio: see summary of the bug :) [21:20:21] <@K_F> GLEP 76 is in action as it is, so it is not permitted until it is changed [21:20:26] <@dilfridge> but until then we should come up with a workable policy and vote on it [21:21:01] <+robbat2> K_F: GLEP-76 as worded doesn't prohibit multiline; so it does permit it [21:21:27] <@K_F> robbat2: I disagree, it says that "All copyrightable files included in Gentoo projects must contain appropriate copyright and license notices, as defined by this policy." [21:21:35] <@leio> _as defined by this policy_ [21:21:36] <@K_F> and the policy only define 2 alternatives [21:21:37] <@ulm> robbat2: it forbids mixing simplified and non-simplified, though [21:21:51] <@leio> I read that multi-line is not allowed in either case [21:21:58] <@K_F> me too [21:22:00] <@dilfridge> as I read it it forbids multi-line [21:22:00] <@Whissi> ack [21:22:23] <@WilliamH> We shouldn't vote on anything today. [21:22:25] <+robbat2> i agree mixing them is disallowed, but not multiline non-simplified [21:22:35] <@dilfridge> there are two alternatives given, and both are single-line [21:22:47] <@ulm> I'd be somewhat generous for the traditional notice, to avoid overlong lines [21:22:51] <@leio> + _as defined by this policy_ == glep 76 [21:23:03] <@leio> yeah, but multiple line single notice is fine [21:23:19] <@leio> that's just wrapping [21:23:38] <@K_F> yes, I'd agree that is pragmatic reading for wrapping [21:23:42] <@ulm> preferably, wrap it in the middle of a company's name :p [21:24:05] -*- ulm just kidding [21:24:13] <+robbat2> (i have to leave shortly for my kids) [21:24:20] <@leio> so that bug remains open as a GLEP violation and we don't do anything about it until next meeting? [21:24:43] <@ulm> I won't press for a vote today [21:24:56] <@WilliamH> It's a questionable violation. [21:24:58] <@WilliamH> at best. [21:25:07] <@ulm> it's crystal clear [21:25:09] <@leio> I'm sorry, but it is a clear violation, two of them. [21:25:18] <@leio> one of them not so clear, but the Authors + explicit is clear violation [21:25:19] <@dilfridge> voting today makes no sense [21:25:37] <@leio> I suspect we might end up with a dozen more violations by next meeting though [21:25:41] <@leio> if that's fine; fine [21:25:46] <+robbat2> there are already more violations than SIE [21:25:51] <@leio> example? [21:25:56] <@WilliamH> ck-sources [21:26:11] <@leio> there is no violation in ck-sources. [21:26:26] <@WilliamH> There are others listed on the bug [21:26:47] <@ulm> ck-sources are fine by GLEP 76, only against tree policy [21:26:57] <+robbat2> 'diff ck-sources-4.14.{69,71}.ebuild', and tell me if that should have been counted as a main contributor? [21:27:11] <@ulm> but might be that they were committed before tree policy was active [21:27:35] <@leio> None of them are violations - not counting potentially main contributor being wrong [21:27:52] <@WilliamH> What about https://bugs.gentoo.org/670702#C12 [21:28:13] <@ulm> robbat2: kuzetsa has maintained it for a long time, so might be that she's the main contributor by now [21:28:49] <@ulm> (but I haven't done an audit of it) [21:28:54] <@leio> WilliamH: none of those mix Gentoo Authors and a certain contributor name; and none of them are multiple notices. [21:30:20] <@WilliamH> WRT Sony, Sony Mobile and Sony Imageworks are already contributors to open source. [21:31:14] <+robbat2> i have to go for my kids now; can't stay longer [21:31:58] <@leio> Lets continue with this outside meeting in a proper pace then. [21:32:00] <@leio> Next up - open floor [21:32:53] -*- Whissi has nothing for open floor [21:34:36] -*- leio prepares the gavel... [21:36:57] <@leio> ok, meeting over, thanks all :)