*: Pull opencontainers/project-template

[wking]

Settle into the OCI boilerplate with:

$ git pull --log --no-ff git://github.com/opencontainers/project-template.git
$ git checkout --theirs CONTRIBUTING.md
$ git checkout --ours README.md
$ emacs .pullapprove.yml  # set reviewers.teams to go-digest-maintainers
$ git add .pullapprove.yml CONTRIBUTING.md README.md
$ git commit

[wking]

This addresses the “Update security statement to be in line with OCI procedures” and “PullApprove configuration” points from #17. The PullApprove config is also #16 and #21.

[stevvooe]

Remove LICENSE.docs and LICENSE.code.

[wking]

On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 04:38:04PM -0800, Stephen Day wrote:

Remove LICENSE.docs and LICENSE.code.

Is that possible? I've pushed 22e4324 → bf60e34 dropping LICENSE.code and shifting CONTRIBUTING to Apache, but the README content is still under the CC license.

[wking]

On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 04:45:45PM -0800, W. Trevor King wrote:

Is that possible? I've pushed 22e4324 → bf60e34 dropping LICENSE.code and shifting CONTRIBUTING to Apache, but the README content is still under the CC license.

It looks like we're the only README contributors:

$ git shortlog -s README.md 4 Stephen Day 2 Stephen J Day 5 W. Trevor King

I'm fine re-licensing my README contributions under Apache 2.0. If you are also comfortable with that, I can drop LICENSE.docs and streamline the license section of the README.

[stevvooe]

@wking The CC license was only for docs/, per the readme, if I remember correctly.

@thaJeztah Do you see any issue here?

[wking]

On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 04:52:42PM -0800, Stephen Day wrote:

@wking The CC license was only for docs/, per the readme, if I remember correctly.

Current master README has “This README.md file and the CONTRIBUTING.md file are licensed under the Creative Commons…” 1. The docs/ reference was removed in #12. You'd landed the README reference in 36db1987.

[thaJeztah]

Having a CC license on the documentation was something suggested by the Docker "legal" team at some point. For this project I think it would be ok to simplify things and license everything under Apache 2

[stevvooe]

@thaJeztah Yes, let's remove the CC license. It makes no sense to bring in a separate license for a README file.

[wking]

On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 11:32:35AM -0800, Stephen Day wrote:

@thaJeztah Yes, let's remove the CC license. It makes no sense to bring in a separate license for a README file.

Is that “I'm relicencing all of my previous README contributions under Apache 2.0”?

[stevvooe]

@wking That is not quite how that works. The contributions to the Docker project repositories were all assigned to Docker, Inc.

I guess we retain this for now but we should get this worked out. This is just a Go package. Having a secondary documentation license for the README just hinders usage with extra legal baggage.

[wking]

On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 02:10:03PM -0800, Stephen Day wrote:

The contributions to the Docker project repositories were all assigned to Docker, Inc.

Is that just for employees? I don't remember transfering copyright for my contributions. If your README contributions are copyright Docker, Inc., we should ask them to relicense those README contributions under Apache 2.0.

[stevvooe]

@wking I was under the impression that DCO implied copyright assignment, but it looks like it doesn't.

Either way, I wrote this working for Docker and the README is fine under Apache.

[wking]

On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 02:36:26PM -0800, Stephen Day wrote:

Either way, I wrote this working for Docker and the README is fine under Apache.

That's close enough to “The copyright holder for my contributions is relicencing all of my previous README contributions under Apache 2.0” for me ;). I've pushed beb3ba7 updating the copyright/licensing section and removing LICENSE.docs.

[stevvooe]

LGTM

@wking Thanks for getting this worked out!

[wking]

Anything I can do to help this along?

[stevvooe]

@dmcgowan @aaronlehmann PTAL

[stevvooe]

@caniszczyk Do we preserve the commit history for other projects, as well? This seems like it will greatly skew contribution numbers.

[caniszczyk]

Please don't preserve commit history, just squash everything into one commit here

cc: @wking @stevvooe

[wking]

On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 01:46:16PM -0800, Stephen Day wrote:

@caniszczyk Do we preserve the commit history for other projects, as well? This seems like it will greatly skew contribution numbers.

Is there any significance to contribution numbers? Preserving the Git history means we can pull in future project-template updates with future calls like:

$ git pull --log git://github.com/opencontainers/project-template.git

and Git can sort out conflicts with any local changes. It also makes copyright attribution and licensing easier to track down (because I certainly didn't write most of the content I'm pulling in here).

I've suggested a similar approach in opencontainers/runtime-tools#274, which is still in flight as well. I think preserving the history is useful and see no significant downside, but shrug, it's your project. If you want blame to be less useful, and future pulls from project-template to be more work, and this whole hunk under my Signed-off-by, it's you're project ;).

[stevvooe]

Closing in favor of a simpler PR.