Making copyright holders easier to parse

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
24 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Making copyright holders easier to parse

Boost - Dev mailing list
Dear Boost developers,

I am one of the Debian developers maintaining the Boost package in
Debian. As part of packaging policy, we want the copyright status of
each file in Debian packages to be documented, which includes at least
the name of the copyright holders and the license of that particular
file. As you can believe, this is rather complicated for Boost, since
there are a lot of files with many copyright holders.

I started to use the tool bcp, which among other things is able to
collect such copyright information. My clone is available here[1].
However, bcp often is confused by the inconsistent style of how
copyright holders are listed in different files, so it required a lot a
manual fixing. For example, sometimes copyright years are written before
the name, sometimes after, sometimes they're absent; names are sometimes
separated by commas, sometimes by newlines, maybe even sometimes by
nothing. Sometimes there are spelling mistakes or casing inconsistencies
between names, or inconsistent institutions' names. Bcp has some
complicated regular expression to overcame all these differences, but
the result is brittle at its best.

 [1] https://salsa.debian.org/gio/boost-copyright

Since I am doing this manual work anyway, I might as well update the
Boost files so that their copyright headers are more consistent and easy
to parse, and then I could submit you patches for having them fixed in
the Boost official repositories.

My question is: are you interested in this kind of patches? Of course I
would still go through the ordinary patch submission procedure. I am
just asking if this kind of patches would be well received or not.

To better illustrate what I mean, let me consider a few examples (the
chosen files are completely random); file
libs/log/include/boost/log/exceptions.hpp currently has:

> /*
>  *          Copyright Andrey Semashev 2007 - 2015.
>  * Distributed under the Boost Software License, Version 1.0.
>  *    (See accompanying file LICENSE_1_0.txt or copy at
>  *          http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt)
>  */

I might change this to:

> /*
>  * Copyright: 2007-2015 Andrey Semashev
>  * License: Boost Software License, Version 1.0
>  * (See accompanying file LICENSE_1_0.txt or copy at
>  * http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt)
>  */

File libs/atomic/include/boost/atomic/fences.hpp has:

> /*
>  * Distributed under the Boost Software License, Version 1.0.
>  * (See accompanying file LICENSE_1_0.txt or copy at
>  * http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt)
>  *
>  * Copyright (c) 2011 Helge Bahmann
>  * Copyright (c) 2013 Tim Blechmann
>  * Copyright (c) 2014 Andrey Semashev
>  */

I might change this to:

> /*
>  * Copyright: 2011 Helge Bahmann
>  * Copyright: 2013 Tim Blechmann
>  * Copyright: 2014 Andrey Semashev
>  * License: Boost Software License, Version 1.0
>  * (See accompanying file LICENSE_1_0.txt or copy at
>  * http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt)
>  */

I hope these examples illustrate my intention. I think that having more
easily parsable copyright holders could be useful for Debian, for Boost
and for Boost adopters which should properly care about the licensing of
the libraries they use.

Thank you, Giovanni.
--
Giovanni Mascellani <[hidden email]>
Postdoc researcher - Université Libre de Bruxelles

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Making copyright holders easier to parse

Boost - Dev mailing list
This sounds entirely reasonable.

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Making copyright holders easier to parse

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list
On Sat, Jul 27, 2019, 04:44 Giovanni Mascellani via Boost <
[hidden email]> wrote:
<...>

> My question is: are you interested in this kind of patches? Of course I
> would still go through the ordinary patch submission procedure. I am
> just asking if this kind of patches would be well received or not.
>

I'd be glad to merge such patches. Many thanks in advance!

BTW, we'll have to update one of our static analysis tools to make sure
that all the files have the right copyright notice format.

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Making copyright holders easier to parse

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list
On 7/27/19 4:36 AM, Giovanni Mascellani via Boost wrote:

>
>> /*
>>   *          Copyright Andrey Semashev 2007 - 2015.
>>   * Distributed under the Boost Software License, Version 1.0.
>>   *    (See accompanying file LICENSE_1_0.txt or copy at
>>   *          http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt)
>>   */
>
> I might change this to:
>
>> /*
>>   * Copyright: 2007-2015 Andrey Semashev
>>   * License: Boost Software License, Version 1.0
>>   * (See accompanying file LICENSE_1_0.txt or copy at
>>   * http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt)
>>   */
>
> File libs/atomic/include/boost/atomic/fences.hpp has:
>
>> /*
>>   * Distributed under the Boost Software License, Version 1.0.
>>   * (See accompanying file LICENSE_1_0.txt or copy at
>>   * http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt)
>>   *
>>   * Copyright (c) 2011 Helge Bahmann
>>   * Copyright (c) 2013 Tim Blechmann
>>   * Copyright (c) 2014 Andrey Semashev
>>   */
>
> I might change this to:
>
>> /*
>>   * Copyright: 2011 Helge Bahmann
>>   * Copyright: 2013 Tim Blechmann
>>   * Copyright: 2014 Andrey Semashev
>>   * License: Boost Software License, Version 1.0
>>   * (See accompanying file LICENSE_1_0.txt or copy at
>>   * http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt)
>>   */
>
> I hope these examples illustrate my intention. I think that having more
> easily parsable copyright holders could be useful for Debian, for Boost
> and for Boost adopters which should properly care about the licensing of
> the libraries they use.

I'd prefer if the license headers were also easily readable by human
users, since it is humans these headers are intended for in the first
place. In particular, keep the copyright holders visually separate from
the license e.g. by an empty line. I'm not very keen on using colon to
introduce a-la-HTTP headers, but that might be ok if everyone agrees.
Are we sure that the "Distributed under" part has no legal significance?

Also, we have an "inspect" tool that checks for the license header
presence. Make sure that the modified headers satisfy that tool.

Also, it might be a good time to update license URLs to https.

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Making copyright holders easier to parse

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boost <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Antony Polukhin via
> Boost
> Sent: 27 July 2019 05:46
> To: [hidden email] List <[hidden email]>
> Cc: Antony Polukhin <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [boost] Making copyright holders easier to parse
>
> On Sat, Jul 27, 2019, 04:44 Giovanni Mascellani via Boost <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
> <...>
>
> > My question is: are you interested in this kind of patches? Of course
> > I would still go through the ordinary patch submission procedure. I am
> > just asking if this kind of patches would be well received or not.
> >
>
> I'd be glad to merge such patches. Many thanks in advance!
>
> BTW, we'll have to update one of our static analysis tools to make sure that all
> the files have the right copyright notice format.

We already have our inspect tool

https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/release/tools/inspect/

(Although we don't make as much use of it as we should and we ought to be checking it more carefully and repairing any copyright omissions).

This should (and I think does) ensure that there is a copyright claim and Bost license text/link for every file.

And we could change it to enforce a uniform content (at a significant price of a big churn of file changes and big rebuilds - Boost is BIG).

Is it really necessary to collect all the individual copyright owners names?

Can't you just record as  a 'Member of Boost'?

Just checking 😉

Paul

Paul A. Bristow
Prizet Farmhouse
Kendal, Cumbria
LA8 8AB           UK










_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Making copyright holders easier to parse

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list
Not to discourage your effort but...

On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 7:44 PM Giovanni Mascellani via Boost <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> > /*
> >  *          Copyright Andrey Semashev 2007 - 2015.
> >  * Distributed under the Boost Software License, Version 1.0.
> >  *    (See accompanying file LICENSE_1_0.txt or copy at
> >  *          http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt)
> >  */
>
> I might change this to:
>
> > /*
> >  * Copyright: 2007-2015 Andrey Semashev
> >  * License: Boost Software License, Version 1.0
> >  * (See accompanying file LICENSE_1_0.txt or copy at
> >  * http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt)
> >  */
>

Both of those changes, to the attribution and licensing, would almost
certainly require Boost to get legal consult. As the current template, as
describe in <https://www.boost.org/users/license.html
<https://www.boost.org/users/license.html#FAQ>> was a product of the
original creation of the Boost Software License.

Although I'm all for making the attributions and licensing consistent :-)

--
-- Rene Rivera
-- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Making copyright holders easier to parse

Boost - Dev mailing list
On 2019-07-27 at 13:04, Rene Rivera via Boost wrote:

> Not to discourage your effort but...
>
> On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 7:44 PM Giovanni Mascellani via Boost <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>>> /*
>>>   *          Copyright Andrey Semashev 2007 - 2015.
>>>   * Distributed under the Boost Software License, Version 1.0.
>>>   *    (See accompanying file LICENSE_1_0.txt or copy at
>>>   *          http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt)
>>>   */
>>
>> I might change this to:
>>
>>> /*
>>>   * Copyright: 2007-2015 Andrey Semashev
>>>   * License: Boost Software License, Version 1.0
>>>   * (See accompanying file LICENSE_1_0.txt or copy at
>>>   * http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt)
>>>   */
>>
>
> Both of those changes, to the attribution and licensing, would almost
> certainly require Boost to get legal consult. As the current template, as
> describe in <https://www.boost.org/users/license.html
> <https://www.boost.org/users/license.html#FAQ>> was a product of the
> original creation of the Boost Software License.
>

Sounds like a good idea.

Old US copyright laws specifically mention "Copyright" and "Copr." as
proper forms, but says nothing about "Copyright:".

Wouldn't want to stuble on such a technicality, would we?  :-)


> Although I'm all for making the attributions and licensing consistent :-)
>

Right.


    Bo Persson


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Making copyright holders easier to parse

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list
On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 7:05 AM Rene Rivera wrote:

>
> Not to discourage your effort but...
>
> Both of those changes, to the attribution and licensing, would almost
> certainly require Boost to get legal consult. As the current template, as
> describe in <https://www.boost.org/users/license.html
> <https://www.boost.org/users/license.html#FAQ>> was a product of the
> original creation of the Boost Software License.
>
> Although I'm all for making the attributions and licensing consistent :-)

+1.

Instead of inventing a new format now, if anything, why not make them
consistent with https://www.boost.org/users/license.html prescribes?
After all, many of our libraries are already consistent with it, and
as Rene (and the page) conveys, some effort when into deciding things
like that.

The page has the format "Copyright Joe Coder 2004 - 2006" and most
libraries have that, or "Copyright (C) Joe Coder 2004 - 2006". Both
are easy to parse without needing to introduce a colon after
"Copyright:".

In any case, some discussion needs to happen around what format we
want, the License page should be updated first, all before any pull
requests start being made.

Glen

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Making copyright holders easier to parse

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list

> Both of those changes, to the attribution and licensing, would almost
> certainly require Boost to get legal consult.

I don't think that is the case.  All the same information is conveyed
with very similar context, manner, and detail.

What I'd be interested in is adding this automated check to the general
CI infrastructure.


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Making copyright holders easier to parse

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list
Hi,

Il 27/07/19 10:22, Glen Fernandes ha scritto:
> +1.

Thank you for everybody's feedback, which seems to be mostly positive!

> Instead of inventing a new format now, if anything, why not make them
> consistent with https://www.boost.org/users/license.html prescribes?
> After all, many of our libraries are already consistent with it, and
> as Rene (and the page) conveys, some effort when into deciding things
> like that.
>
> The page has the format "Copyright Joe Coder 2004 - 2006" and most
> libraries have that, or "Copyright (C) Joe Coder 2004 - 2006". Both
> are easy to parse without needing to introduce a colon after
> "Copyright:".

I wasn't actually pushing for any specific header format, sorry for not
making this clear. To me, anything that can be easily automatically
parsed is fine, including of course the one mentioned in the FAQs (which
I had not previously noticed). However, that template does not cover the
case of more than one copyright holder. Would something like this be
acceptable?

//          Copyright Joe Coder 2004 - 2006.
//          Copyright Bob Hacker 2010 - 2015.
// Copyright Department of Writing Very Long Names, Newline
//               Company Inc. 2017 - 2019.
// Distributed under the Boost Software License, Version 1.0.
//    (See accompanying file LICENSE_1_0.txt or copy at
//          https://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt)

If not, what other?

(the thing with a very long name is not pretentious; there is already a
"Institute of Transport, Railway Construction and Operation, University
of Hanover" in Boost).

If this proposal seems appropriate for you, I can start to patch a few
files and submit them here, so that they can be evaluated more carefully
(this might not immediate, as I still have to write the code to do so).

Thanks again, Giovanni.
--
Giovanni Mascellani <[hidden email]>
Postdoc researcher - Université Libre de Bruxelles

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Making copyright holders easier to parse

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list
On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 6:23 AM Glen Fernandes via Boost
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Although I'm all for making the attributions and licensing consistent :-)

I am very much in favor of this as long as it does not require any of
my source files to change.

Regards

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Making copyright holders easier to parse

Boost - Dev mailing list
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boost <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Vinnie Falco via
> Boost
> Sent: 28 July 2019 00:43
> To: [hidden email] List <[hidden email]>
> Cc: Vinnie Falco <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [boost] Making copyright holders easier to parse
>
> On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 6:23 AM Glen Fernandes via Boost
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > Although I'm all for making the attributions and licensing
> > > consistent :-)
>
> I am very much in favor of this as long as it does not require any of my
source
> files to change.
>

+1

Because we have a massive Continuous Integration system with many compilers and
platform that picks up changes to source files, *any* change to source, test or
documentation files is like to trigger a massive recompilation and rebuild and
retest and redocumentation.

That will cause a load of machine time (already insufficient)..

I think that we are pretty much following the guidelines
https://www.boost.org/users/license.html  (though they do not mention the common
case of multiple authors).

We (and anyone) can check the results of the inspect program to confirm that all
files have a Boost copyright claim.

All copyright lines have either a name or a date after the word copyright.
Nobody has a digit in their name?

Surely this isn't too difficult to parse?

Any that cause trouble can be fixed individually if you tell us?

Paul

Paul A. Bristow
Prizet Farmhouse
Kendal, Cumbria
LA8 8AB           UK








_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Making copyright holders easier to parse

Boost - Dev mailing list
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019, Paul A Bristow via Boost wrote:

> Because we have a massive Continuous Integration system with many compilers and
> platform that picks up changes to source files, *any* change to source, test or
> documentation files is like to trigger a massive recompilation and rebuild and
> retest and redocumentation.
>
> That will cause a load of machine time (already insufficient)..

It appears that continuous integration in boost is a failure. CI is
supposed to make it easier to make changes (it checks that your
modifications don't break stuff). However, it seems that it is actually
preventing people from touching anything.

Not quite trolling, this seems like an argument to disable CI (or at least
change its configuration significantly), not to avoid making the source
changes.

(for the debian boost packages, I was hoping that the election of a new
DPL would help relax the requirements a bit...)

--
Marc Glisse

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Making copyright holders easier to parse

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list
On 7/28/19 11:27 AM, Paul A Bristow via Boost wrote:
>
> Because we have a massive Continuous Integration system with many compilers and
> platform that picks up changes to source files, *any* change to source, test or
> documentation files is like to trigger a massive recompilation and rebuild and
> retest and redocumentation.

I don't think we build docs during our CI jobs, do we?

> That will cause a load of machine time (already insufficient)..

If you want a commit to not trigger a CI job, you can add "[ci skip]" to
the commit title line. Unfortunately, in case of PRs, that is on the
submitter's concience.

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Making copyright holders easier to parse

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list
On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 9:44 PM Giovanni Mascellani via Boost
<[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I hope these examples illustrate my intention. I think that having more
> easily parsable copyright holders could be useful for Debian, for Boost
> and for Boost adopters which should properly care about the licensing of
> the libraries they use.
>

Not a huge fan of the HTTP header syntax for copyright statements.
Everyone has their own style as you can see.  I always use:

Copyright (C) YYYY - YYYY James E. King III

In the examples shown, the ability to parse the original exists:

A) Indication of a copyright,
B) A year or a year range (YYYY, YYYY-YYYY, YYYY - YYYY,
    "YYYY, YYYY - YYYY, YYYY, ...")
C) An optional copyright symbol
D) One or more names

All four sections are easily defined by allowed character content
and/or keyword.  Does "bcp" identify the files that it finds a
"?opyright" statement in but cannot parse?  Why not just fix those?
Given we already have one (or more) regular expressions to find this
information, how about adding Mergeable as a GitHub app to our
repositories and adding a condition for a successful PR so things do
not degrade?

- Jim

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Making copyright holders easier to parse

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boost <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Paul A Bristow via
> Boost
> Sent: 27 July 2019 10:14
> To: [hidden email]
> Cc: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [boost] Making copyright holders easier to parse
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Boost <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Antony
> > Polukhin via Boost
> > Sent: 27 July 2019 05:46
> > To: [hidden email] List <[hidden email]>
> > Cc: Antony Polukhin <[hidden email]>
> > Subject: Re: [boost] Making copyright holders easier to parse
> >
> > On Sat, Jul 27, 2019, 04:44 Giovanni Mascellani via Boost <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > <...>
> >
> > > My question is: are you interested in this kind of patches? Of
> > > course I would still go through the ordinary patch submission
> > > procedure. I am just asking if this kind of patches would be well received or
> not.

I have another suggestion.

We already have the inspect program written in C++ which 'parses' and emits an html report on missing copyright (and many other transgressions of Boot guidelines).

See https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/release/tools/inspect/inspect.cpp

and copyright_check.cpp and .hpp

I suspect that this could easily be altered to add an output to a file of copyright authors(s) and date(s) in whatever format and file type is easiest  for Debian to deal with.

For example a test file containing
Library_name
Author(s)_name  Copyright_Date(s)
...

The build tools are in

I:\boost\tools\inspect

If this works, I feel we could use this updated version in Boost itself.  Other packagers and those needing to jump through copyright and GDPR hoops might find helpful.

This would avoid a paroxysm in our extensive CI system 😊

Paul

Paul A. Bristow
Prizet Farmhouse
Kendal, Cumbria
LA8 8AB           UK





_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Making copyright holders easier to parse

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list
On 7/28/19 01:27, Paul A Bristow via Boost wrote:

>
> Because we have a massive Continuous Integration system with many compilers and
> platform that picks up changes to source files, *any* change to source, test or
> documentation files is like to trigger a massive recompilation and rebuild and
> retest and redocumentation.
>
> That will cause a load of machine time (already insufficient)..
>

We can stage this so there is a single update at the super project.

--
Michael Caisse
Ciere Consulting
ciere.com

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Making copyright holders easier to parse

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list

> On 27. Jul 2019, at 06:51, Bo Persson via Boost <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Sounds like a good idea.
>
> Old US copyright laws specifically mention "Copyright" and "Copr." as proper forms, but says nothing about "Copyright:".
>
> Wouldn't want to stuble on such a technicality, would we?  :-)
>
>
>> Although I'm all for making the attributions and licensing consistent :-)
>
> Right.

The best proposal I have seen in this thread is to consistently apply the template from https://www.boost.org/users/license.html everywhere. If it is consistently applied, it is easy to parse automatically, even if the format is not particularly parser-friendly.

As was said before, we need a new check in the Boost test matrix
https://www.boost.org/development/tests/develop/developer/summary.html
to enforce consistency, since the inspection reports
http://boost.cowic.de/rc/docs-inspect-develop.html
are currently not enforced.

License and copyright errors are by far the most common problems found by the inspection tool, so by adding a check to the test matrix we could clean that up a lot.

Best regards,
Hans


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Making copyright holders easier to parse

Boost - Dev mailing list


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boost <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Hans Dembinski via
> Boost
> Sent: 5 August 2019 08:57
> To: Boost Devs <[hidden email]>
> Cc: Hans Dembinski <[hidden email]>; Bo Persson <bo@bo-
> persson.se>
> Subject: Re: [boost] Making copyright holders easier to parse
>
>
> > On 27. Jul 2019, at 06:51, Bo Persson via Boost <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Sounds like a good idea.
> >
> > Old US copyright laws specifically mention "Copyright" and "Copr." as proper
> forms, but says nothing about "Copyright:".
> >
> > Wouldn't want to stuble on such a technicality, would we?  :-)
> >
> >
> >> Although I'm all for making the attributions and licensing consistent
> >> :-)
> >
> > Right.
>
> The best proposal I have seen in this thread is to consistently apply the template
> from https://www.boost.org/users/license.html everywhere. If it is consistently
> applied, it is easy to parse automatically, even if the format is not particularly
> parser-friendly.
>
> As was said before, we need a new check in the Boost test matrix
> https://www.boost.org/development/tests/develop/developer/summary.html
> to enforce consistency, since the inspection reports
> http://boost.cowic.de/rc/docs-inspect-develop.html
> are currently not enforced.
>
> License and copyright errors are by far the most common problems found by the
> inspection tool, so by adding a check to the test matrix we could clean that up a
> lot.

+1

The inspect tool is neglected.

It can (and should) be run *locally* by each library maintainer.

Cd to boost/libs/somelibrary >inspect > inspect.html

And inspect the file written called inspect.html - or whatever you called it.

(and then delete after reading(and correcting 'transgressions' ) to avoid inspect.html being flagged as a dodgy file 😉

Paul






_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Making copyright holders easier to parse

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list
On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 2:57 AM Hans Dembinski via Boost <
[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> > On 27. Jul 2019, at 06:51, Bo Persson via Boost <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > Sounds like a good idea.
> >
> > Old US copyright laws specifically mention "Copyright" and "Copr." as
> proper forms, but says nothing about "Copyright:".
> >
> > Wouldn't want to stuble on such a technicality, would we?  :-)
> >
> >
> >> Although I'm all for making the attributions and licensing consistent
> :-)
> >
> > Right.
>
> The best proposal I have seen in this thread is to consistently apply the
> template from https://www.boost.org/users/license.html everywhere. If it
> is consistently applied, it is easy to parse automatically, even if the
> format is not particularly parser-friendly.


> As was said before, we need a new check in the Boost test matrix
> https://www.boost.org/development/tests/develop/developer/summary.html
> to enforce consistency, since the inspection reports
> http://boost.cowic.de/rc/docs-inspect-develop.html
> are currently not enforced.
>
> License and copyright errors are by far the most common problems found by
> the inspection tool, so by adding a check to the test matrix we could clean
> that up a lot.
>

Maybe.. It should be easy though. It just takes someone to add such a check
to <
https://github.com/boostorg/boost/blob/develop/status/boost_check_library.py
>.

--
-- Rene Rivera
-- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
12