Restore copyright attribution

[jasnell]

Checklist

• make -j8 test (UNIX), or vcbuild test nosign (Windows) passes
• commit message follows commit guidelines

Affected core subsystem(s)

everything.

Description of change

Refs: nodejs/TSC#174

Back in the io.js days, 3e1b1dd removed copyright headers from the source files. This commit generally restores the original copyright with one edit (s/Node/Node.js) and includes a reference to the LICENSE file for the current licensing details.

I have no doubt that there are some files in here that do not require the addition of the attribution (such as new files added after the project merge, etc). It is a ton of work to identify those files so I went with the bulk approach to start and will go back and remove the attribution comment as those files are identified. I would appreciate help identifying those files and ask that such files be listed in the comments in this PR. Anyone wishing to go the extra mile would open a PR against my dev branch to remove those attributions

Note: This change has been requested by the Node.js Foundation Legal Committee. The specific details of this change are still being discussed and determined.

Moderation note (jasnell): Please direct any discussion or questions about this change to nodejs/TSC#174. This PR should not be used for discussion of the reasons or merits of this edit. Any comment posted here that does not have to do with technical specifics of the individual edits included in this PR will be removed.

[richardlau]

Does this block need to be updated? Immediately following it is

This license applies to parts of Node.js originating from the
https://github.com/joyent/node repository:
"""
Copyright Joyent, Inc. and other Node contributors. All rights reserved.

which is almost identical and already includes the Joyent attribution.

[jasnell]

The first block is the current copyright and license block, the second is the original. While almost identical they need to be separate.

[richardlau]

Fair enough. My interpretation would be that the first block applies to files that don't originate from https://github.com/joyent/node (as that is what the second block is for). But IANAL.

[jasnell]

Consider this change a WIP and I'm waiting to hear back from the lawyers to let me know if it's adequate :-)

[mikeal]

Can we just do a list of files that are in 3e1b1dd and only add it to those?

[mikeal]

ya, you can use this to get a list of files we need to modify:

git diff-tree --no-commit-id --name-only -r 3e1b1dd

[mikeal]

Looks like there are 1105 files that need to be altered, well under the 1,878 in the current diff.

[jasnell]

The challenge is how many of those extra files are direct derivatives of those original 1105 source files. If those contain code that's been moved or adapted from the original then the attribution will need to be included. If those are completely new files then it does not.

…

On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 2:54 PM Mikeal Rogers ***@***.***> wrote: Looks like there are 1105 files that need to be altered, well under the 1,878 in the current diff. — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#10155 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAa2eZmyDTLjiF5Zl8tuqd9czAoJmlw7ks5rFeeVgaJpZM4LF0tp> .

[mikeal]

I'm not sure what the rules are for derivative works. In this particular case we are being asked to restore attribution that was explicitly removed. I think that if we keep to that the interested parties will be satisfied.

We have a longer term issue that we need to resolve about what form of attribution and copyright notice we want in all files by default which is almost resolved. I'd prefer not to complicate that with a lot of unnecessary notices already in the files.

[jasnell]

I generally agree in spirit but the issue is this text from the original attribution: "in all copies or substantial portions of the Software", specifically the "or substantial portions" bit. That would cover files created after 3e1b1dd that contain wholesale copies or significant blocks of code from the original files. These would likely include the various /lib/internal/*.js files and many of the tests that have been broken out (test/parallel/buffer.js was recently split out into multiple files, for instance).

[jasnell]

@mikeal ... perhaps you can can clarification from the lawyers on this bit?

[jasnell]

@mikeal: updated per suggestions.

[trevnorris]

@mikeal I'd like that the legal team at least let us know that they have begun review of the new header (as done in #10599). I, and I'm assuming anyone else who works on core code, doesn't want to be stuck with this massive header for the next 6 months or more while we wait for the legal team to give a crap about changing it.

[jasnell]

@nodejs/ctc ... The Foundation Board approved this change. I will need to rebase it to resolve the current conflicts then it will need to be landed shortly

[jasnell]

@nodejs/ctc ... This is ready. Please take a final look. I'll land tomorrow if everything looks ok

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/6755/

[addaleax]

Find it a bit odd that this touched the readable-stream files in deps/npm, but I guess we’ll have to live with that

[jasnell]

Yep. It touches everything modified by the original pull request that is still remaining in the tree.

[jasnell]

Landed in 98e54b0

[italoacasas]

@jasnell is this needed in the release?

If that is the case, we need to backport to v7.x

[jasnell]

For now, no. It might need to be back ported later but don't worry about it just yet

[italoacasas]

Perfect.

[gibfahn]

@jasnell assuming the same applies to v6.x, feel free to change to a lts-watch-v6.x if that's not the case.

[jasnell]

Please do not backport this.