Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: > I don't understand - has IBM required that we keep IBM copyright on the > source?
As I understand from the IBM lawyer who deals with ASF, IBM did not assign copyright to ASF of the Cloudscape/Derby code, but gave ASF a "copyright license grant". Given the current issues around open source (caused by SCO), it seems that ASF (in terms of the Derby community) should ensure that the Derby handover is handled correctly. If the "copyright licence grant" allows ASF to remove the IBM copyright, according to an ASF laywer, then it could be removed. To remove it based upon guesswork just seems wrong. If you look at section 4c) of the Apache licence 2.0, which includes a grant of copyright license, for comparision, you will see that it states that copyright notices must be retained on re-distribution. We can make progress on most of applying the ASF license by following Jalud's and Jonas's e-mails. That would leave the code with a IBM and Apache copyright. This specific issue (removing the IBM copyright) needs to be addressed one way or the other before Derby can graduate. For this specific vote, I'm still not sure if a vote is the correct approach. If we need to retain copyright notices then option 2) is the only choice. I think "retain" could only mean leave as-is, not 'keep a modified version'. It may be more a legal decision than a community one. Dan.
pgp7P7kUYpt9O.pgp
Description: PGP signature
