-- replying below to -- From: jan i [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 01:42 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Copyright notices
On 13 February 2015 at 10:25, Peter Kelly <[email protected]> wrote: < [ ... ] > If you write new code though, you still own the copyright on it, correct? > An example would be the scripts you wrote for externals required by the > windows build - you own these but have granted a license for their use to > Apache, is that right? > That is nearly correct. The copyright is Apache (see the ICLA) but you have the full right to use it. The ICLA transfers ownership to Apache, this is so that ASF can protect you in case of problems, if you owned the code ASF could not protect you, and ASF could not license it to others (the essence of ALv2). <orcmid> The ownership of the copyright in the contribution is that of the contributor. You can never acquire copyright of something that is not your original creation (and does not infringe on what are called the exclusive rights of the copyright holder <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/106>). There is no transfer of copyright in the iCLA (or CCLA or standard SGA). There is only licensing. In particular, the copyright holder does not license the transfer of copyright to recipients of the license in the case of iCLA and also the ALv2. If ASF was a copyright owner of the contributed work, it could indeed make transfers to others. Not only does the ASF have no desire to do that, the licenses from contributors do not give the ASF any power to do so regardless. It is important that the idea of copyright transfer and of copyright licensing be kept very separate. This comes up on various lists from time to time. Yet if you read the ALv2 or the iCLA, there is absolutely no mention of copyright transfer. EXAMPLES I believe the FAQ on the ALv2 and third-party software cover this, but examples applicable to Corinthia might be helpful. This is not legal advice. I have no ability to offer such advice and none is intended. The copyright notice that makes claims about Apache Software Foundation copyright is only about the combination into an Apache Release, not over the original contribution, which always remains under the copyright of the contributors (or the original copyright holders that grant the contributors the right to offer such a license). As an example, if I were to prepare a derivative of a work that is the copyright of another, the copyright in the retained content remains with the original licensor. Whatever is new copyrightable subject matter in the derivative work is under that producer's copyright, and it is not an infringement when a license permits derivatives and I have been careful to satisfy other conditions of the license. In the ongoing dispute between Google and Oracle over the Java APIs, Google does not have such a license and claims an exception in its appeal to being found liable for infringement of Oracle's copyright in a court of law. It remains to be seen whether Google's legal theory holds water in its appeal at the US Supreme Court. </orcmid> rgds jan i. > > -- > Dr. Peter M. Kelly > [email protected] > http://www.kellypmk.net/ > > PGP key: http://www.kellypmk.net/pgp-key <http://www.kellypmk.net/pgp-key> > (fingerprint 5435 6718 59F0 DD1F BFA0 5E46 2523 BAA1 44AE 2966) > >
