Marvin Humphrey wrote:
On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 2:28 PM, Henry Saputra<henry.sapu...@gmail.com> wrote:
The question is whether we need to keep this section:
Portions of this software were developed by Twitter.
Copyright Twitter, 2017
in the NOTICE file. Since Twitter already signed off the source
contributions, we could probably remove this section.
Only Twitter's authorized representative may legally remove Twitter's
copyright notice. Everyone else must leave it alone.
Unless something unusual has occurred (like a new SGA from Twitter in 2017),
there should not have been a need to update Twitter's copyright. Josh was
right to flag that as weird.
Sijie, I see that it was your commit that changed the copyright year in
NOTICE. It was correct to update the ASF copyright, so please leave that as
2017 (and continue to updated it in future years). For the Twitter copyright,
please either restore the 2016 date or discuss any unusual circumstances.
(Feel free to ask questions, we're here to help.)
Josh was also right to flag the addition of the "Copyright 2017 The Apache
Software Foundation" notices in source headers.
http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#headers
2. Each source file should include the following license header -- note
that there should be no copyright notice in the header:
For individual files, contributors continue to hold copyright on their
contributions. The ASF (unlike some other entities such as the FSF) does not
require copyright assignment. Thus the ASF only holds copyright in the
collection; that's what's expressed in the NOTICE file ASF copyright notice.
Marvin Humphrey
Marvin -- you said it much better than I could have :). Thank you for
the clarity on this one.
Sijie, just to clarify, the original request by John to update
DistributedLog's copyright year was _just_ for DistributedLog's
copyright. As Marvin points out, you should never be modifying the
copyright from any bundled software (unless you are changing that
bundled software and the copyright also changed ;))
