On 1/6/12 5:33 AM, Rick Hillegas wrote:
On 1/5/12 1:42 PM, Rick Hillegas wrote:
At this point, I think that the Derby developers need to have a
conversation about why our source distributions have been carrying
these licensing terms since release 10.3.
Thanks Jean and Dag for finding that email thread. After reading it, I
have a couple comments/questions:
I'm going to be a bit sloppy with my reply because I won't really have
time to dig into this until the weekend (the day job calls ...) One of
the things we did way back when started to use DITA for doc production
was to specifically request that the DITA developers dual license under
the Apache LIcense, Version 2.0, which they did and which simplified our
life tremendously.
1) The discussion addresses why we believe that fo2html.xsl can be
copied and modified. However, it does not address Dan's question about
whether the file can be redistributed.
It's part of the DITA toolkit which is licensed (dual licensed) under
the Apache License, Version 2.0, as I noted above. See
http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.
2) The discussion does not address the "(c) Copyright IBM Corp. 2004,
2005 All Rights Reserved." statement in sister files like
dita2fo-links.xsl.
Those files are part of the DITA toolkit files, which is available to us
under the Apache License, Version 2.0.
3) I don't find any explanation of why these files lack the Apache 2.0
header. I thought that the Apache header was required on all files
checked into the source repository (including build scripts). Are
these files covered by an exception to that rule?
We only replace copyrights in the headers for the Derby code we develop
at apache -- i.e., in the code we are authorized to change.
These other copyrights are in separate products that Derby uses. We
don't have authorization to remove/replace those copyrights. I suppose
we could ask, but it really isn't a problem. Source code all over
Apache includes copyrights from external entities. Roy Fielding has
(more than once) posted really good guidelines to
[email protected] for when to replace the copyright with the
Apache License, Version 2.0 header and to move the copyright(s) into the
project copyright file -- and when not to. With any luck, maybe some of
that excellent explanation made it into the pages under
http://www.apache.org/legal/ . I'll look for a favorite reference when
I have time this weekend and post it here -- and I'll also review what
I've written here. Anyone who knows, feel free to jump in, fill in, or
correct anything I've said.
regards,
-jean
Thanks,
-Rick
