CCMWG - 08/20/18

Attending

Time:12:00PM PDT/03:00PM EDT - 01:00PM PDT/04:00PM EDT

Zoom: https://princeton.zoom.us/j/397525264

Participants

• @Trey Pendragon  (Princeton University Library)

• @Benjamin Armintor (Columbia University Libraries)

• @Noah Botimer (U. Michigan Library)

• @James Griffin (Princeton University Library)

Agenda

• Retrospective on Sprint

• LICENSE discussion

• Planning for Sprint 2?

Notes

Retrospective

Follow-Up Tasks and Sprint 2

• Pendragon:

  • We need to validate the Google Sheet for the core components

    • https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1IICaXpwzxSFPB_G7k4jzUiPMTmT5OulUQKtF0jSYqvM/edit#gid=0

    • Should just take the projects we had before, and ensure that "FALSE" issues which are still "FALSE" should have an issue

    • Will insert a "has_templates" column for the Spreadsheet

• Next Sprint Planning

  • 09/17 - 09/21

  • Pendragon

    • Some time between now and then, should review the issues on the Waffle board

  • But, Spreadsheet should be addressed more immediately

    • Call for participation and contact product owners

    • Action item for next week to issue a CFP

Licensing

• Botimer

  • Armintor and Botimer discussed this earlier on Slack

  • Looking into details for Apache Software Foundation (ASF) practices...their treatment of documenting copyright

  • They operate similarly to how Samvera does

    • CLA's was borrowed heavily with a preamble specific to Samvera

  • We do not assign copyright

    • Authors to code retain copyright

    • Group retains the composite

      • Combination itself is a work in its own right

    • ASF issues one copyright statement for derivative work (combined thing)

    • There is an open question...can we make a copyright statement for the collective work?

    • There are examples would lead us to believe that "Samvera Community" would be okay with a separate list of authors

    • There is a challenge with existing practices...commit log uses an e-mail address

      • Might resolve cleanly in terms of GitHub...good tracking for CLAs and their employers

      • Contributions are work-for-hire

    • But, this is still not clear

• Actions to be taken

  • Check with Michael Klein as product owner who is in the copyright statement for MIT on browse-everything

    • Should be able to change to an Apache license from MIT

    • Theoretically could change the licenses without including MIT at all, but best to include the MIT license and specify that this exclusively covers previous releases

    • Ensure that this is consistent with other Gems in Samvera

  • Propose Consistency Guidelines for Copyright to Partners

  • Concise summary of what we are seeing...and work we are seeing to get to a simple practice towards evaluating projects as following guidelines

    • Ensuring that file contents are identical (e. g. the top portion of a notice document is the same line)

      • List of institutions who want specific adjustments for the notice file (e. g. Trustees of Institution X)

    • This way the guidelines are simple, can be readily checked

      • Provides a single file where additional copyright holders are specified

• Pendragon:

  • Where are we inconsistent currently?

• Botimer:

  • Nobody has challenged the current copyright statement

  • Headers in certain files might still have copyright ownership information (e. g. jQuery plugin files with this information)

    • Would like to have one formula...for structuring this content and placing it within specific files

    • We should have one descriptive file...without consulting an external source (e. g. the git history)

      • Notes that the tarball distribution won't have that

• We need to summarize the inconsistency, make a proposal for better consistency to vet amongst ourselves and take to the Partners

• Pendragon

  • More immediately, finish this document for the proposal, submit it to the WG for review, then prepare it for submission to Partners

  • Botimer and Armintor will finish this, highlighting the problems regarding the maintenance of the documentation within those repositories

• Pendragon also agrees with Armintor and feels that some significant changes to existing copyright statements might require input from attorneys

• Botimer

  • Still feels that the current state of affairs would cause institutions to hesitate before contributing to the software (if reviewed by their attorneys)

Code of Conduct

Meeting adjourned at 15:31EDT