https://jira.whamcloud.com This file is an XML representation of an issue en-us 9.4.14 940014 05-12-2023 https://jira.whamcloud.com/browse/LU-1839 Lustre <p>For the 2.3 release we need to change copyright messages for all Whamcloud copyright statements to be Intel, similar to <a href="https://jira.whamcloud.com/browse/LU-1146" title="update copyright for all WC modified files in master before 2.2 release" class="issue-link" data-issue-key="LU-1146"><del>LU-1146</del></a> and <a href="https://jira.whamcloud.com/browse/LU-365" title="Update copyright messages for files modified by Whamcloud" class="issue-link" data-issue-key="LU-365"><del>LU-365</del></a>.</p> <p>There is an existing script <tt>build/updatecw.sh</tt> which should be modified to do this, instead of doing it by hand. It needs to leave the existing Oracle copyright statements intact.</p> LU-1839

Update Whamcloud copyright messages to Intel for 2.3 release

Bug Blocker Resolved Fixed Keith Mannthey Andreas Dilger Wed, 5 Sep 2012 19:16:21 +0000 Sat, 22 Sep 2012 01:12:04 +0000 Sat, 22 Sep 2012 01:12:04 +0000 Lustre 2.3.0 Lustre 2.3.0 0 5 <p>Does the Oracle copyright get added to new files?</p> <p>Doug, definitely not, since they didn't develop the code.</p> <p>Please use the standard Whamcloud/GPL boilerplate and header comments as in lustre/mdd/mdd_lfsck.c until we know the format that Intel prefers.</p> <p>Ok just to be clear Whamcloud assigned all it copyrights to Intel?</p> <p>We need to change</p> <div class="preformatted panel" style="border-width: 1px;"><div class="preformattedContent panelContent"> <pre> * Copyright (c) 2011, 2012, Whamcloud, Inc. </pre> </div></div> <p>to </p> <div class="preformatted panel" style="border-width: 1px;"><div class="preformattedContent panelContent"> <pre> * Copyright (c) 2011, 2012, Intel Corporation. </pre> </div></div> <p>All Oracle copyrights remain intact as well as the original GPL2 headers (mostly Sun flavored as I see). </p> <p>Any files that have been touched since 2010-06-01 should have an Intel copyright assignment. </p> <p>I don't know if there is a better Intel copyright or not. Maybe Peter knows?</p> <p>AS for files modified since 2010, you need to take care with that, since it may be some files are modified only by non-Whamcloud commits, and we shouldn't add an Intel copyright in that case.</p> <p>I think it should be possible to find the small number of modified files that do not have Whamcloud copyright lines, and manually check whether any commits are from WC or not. </p> <p>I think I will update the script to change Whamcloud -&gt; Intel. Any additional copyright issues I will work in a manual effort. </p> <p>I have seen "Intel Corporation." if other Intel kernel projects. </p> <p>Ok inital script changes are in review <a href="http://review.whamcloud.com/3975" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">http://review.whamcloud.com/3975</a></p> <p>A pass of the script plus editing of two files the script directs me to can be seen at <a href="http://review.whamcloud.com/3974" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">http://review.whamcloud.com/3974</a></p> <p><a href="https://jira.whamcloud.com/browse/LU-1347" title="Lustre coding style change" class="issue-link" data-issue-key="LU-1347"><del>LU-1347</del></a> build: remove the vim/emacs modelines e3a7c58aebafce40323db54bf6056029e5af4a70 triggered many files to acquire an Intel copyright. </p> <p>I want to be sure this <a href="https://jira.whamcloud.com/browse/LU-1347" title="Lustre coding style change" class="issue-link" data-issue-key="LU-1347"><del>LU-1347</del></a> build: remove the vim/emacs modelines e3a7c58aebafce40323db54bf6056029e5af4a70 is a good candidate to re-copyright on. We really didn't do anything to the code besides mess with comments. </p> <p>Also I noticed a change or two that resulted in a new year stamp from a previous copyright update. </p> <p>Any direction with this would be helpful. </p> <p>As commented in the patch inspection itself, the removal of the vim/emacs modelines is NOT a good reason to add the Intel copyright to those files. Please review all of the files that have new copyright lines (i.e. (+2,-0) lines) or updated the year to 2012, and verify that there were actually commits of real code to those files. It may also be that for some files the addition of the Whamcloud copyright was committed in 2012, but the copyright line only reports 2011, since that is when the code was actually modified. Please do not add the 2012 copyright in that case.</p> <p>I introduced the idea of patch exclusion in a new version of the script and fixed up a few things. For now I exclude the vim/emacs modeline change and the last copyright update, more patches can be added in the futre.</p> <p>As prevous suggestion I broke the big change up into 2 patches. <a href="http://review.whamcloud.com/4017" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">http://review.whamcloud.com/4017</a> and <a href="http://review.whamcloud.com/4016" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">http://review.whamcloud.com/4016</a> </p> <p>There are two issues that I am aware of. </p> <p>1. Some files don't have long git history. An example is libcfs/include/libcfs/libcfs_cpu.h. There is only git history for 2012 and as such a previous 2011 Whamcloud copyright notice is omitted. This can be fixed if we deem it worthy. </p> <p>2. Year ranges are a little odd. I left things as the previous scripts have been doing basically First, Last for the years, middle years are omitted. For instance a file that has C 2010,2011 can become C 2010,2012 (no mention of 2011). There are some large gaps in previous commits 2005, 2010 but I was wondering about changing to First - Last ie 2010 - 2012. Also if #1 is fixed it would be possible to do a long list of years 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, xxxx (all would be verified years of commits). </p> <p>Is there any thoughts about the format we want our year ranges? Right now things are done as they have been in the past. </p> <p>I suspect that e.g. libcfs_cpu.h was recently added, so it is correct to only have a 2012 copyright.</p> <p>For files with multiple years, at Oracle they only showed "first, last" year, since in-between years are irrelevant for copyright legal purposes, and just clutter up the code. Of course, Whamcloud itself only exists since late 2010, so nothing should be copyright before that year. Also, it isn't clear that "first - last" is correct, if there wasn't a change in a middle year. Please just stick with current format for now.</p> <p>I also chatted with Peter today and I feel the current patch set is of the same level of the Oracle statements. I am working to get the patches test/review. </p> <p>Landed for 2.3</p> Development Rank 1|hzvgl3: Rank (Obsolete) 6336 Severity