search

Qiskit / rustworkx

A high performance Python graph library implemented in Rust.
https://www.rustworkx.org
Apache License 2.0
1.09k stars 150 forks source link

Consider stating the copyright holder of the project #1270

Open jakelishman opened 1 month ago

jakelishman commented 1 month ago

What is the expected enhancement?

At the moment, it's not clear to me from an sdist who the copyright holder is for the purposes of the Apache 2 licence, making it somewhat unclear "who" should be attributed. The only metadata in an sdist of the package is that Matt is the author, but this possibly isn't a fully accurate representation of the state or the intended state.

The Apache 2 licence file suggests putting this notice of copyright somewhere in the project:

Copyright [year] [copyright holder].

Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
You may obtain a copy of the License at

    http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0

Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
limitations under the License.

but I couldn't see an equivalent anywhere here.

IvanIsCoding commented 1 month ago

From the CLA that everyone signs to contribute:

Grant of Copyright License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, You hereby grant to IBM and to recipients of software distributed by IBM a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute Your Contributions and such derivative works

So I agree with you Jake. It should state IBM or International Business Machines as the copyright holder.

I am not an IBM employee nor a lawyer. So I will defer it to you folks to send a PR to handle it.

jakelishman commented 1 month ago

Fwiw my purpose here wasn't to make sure the copyright holder was anyone in particular - I don't know who or what entity should be named - it's just we had a minor problem on Qiskit where we were re-using some code under the Apache 2 licence terms, but it's not clear who we should put as the copyright holder.

IvanIsCoding commented 1 month ago

I think with that regard nearly all of it will be IBM copyright.

For code forked from NetworkX we kept the MIT license with their name.