On 8/20/16, 12:24 AM, "Justin Mclean" <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>Hi, > >> I saw some other projects put both headers in a file with mixed content. >> I don't think it is worth trying to find every instance of mixed content >> in our releases, but for Matrix and FlatUI it could make sense. What >>are >> your thoughts on that? > >Depends how much change has been made, an Apache header should not added >and the the original license keep unless there have been significant >changes. [1] (see 3,4 + 5) When I look at Matrix.as it appears that Harbs added ASDoc. So, IMO there is enough content that should be labelled as ASF-owned to have both headers. > >> I don't know what lawyers would say, but IMO, a patch belongs to the >> person doing the modifications. > >But I think you would agrees the patch file contains code that belongs to >the original copyright owners and those license need be be respected. No, I think you have not understood my argument from before. Patch files almost always contain some code from prior committers and your logic would dictate that some kinds of patches, like just deleting a line of code, would not be owned by the modifier. >I just notice the patch actually removes the original license which is >probably not a valid thing to do. (see above) > >Why not be on the safe side and mention it the source LICENSE (as there's >no harm done if it ever turns out they were not needed)? By not >mentioning them it’s probably a licensing error. Unless you really think >it worth a delay in asking asking legal discuss for clarification. I believe what we have done is good enough so no plans to delay unless other PMC members want to delay or have different opinions. IMO, an externs file is not a port, it is a re-implementation as its functionality and the way it implements functionality is significantly changed. AIUI, the purpose of LICENSE and file headers are simply to provide convenient signposts to consumers. Small details do not change the actual licensing/copyright of a line of code. The purpose of this thread is to see if enough PMC members have reviewed the packages and will vote +1 without wasting time sending out votes and canceling them when problems are found. I have updated the approval scripts to use the release branch. It would be good for other PMC folks who plan to vote on the release to perform their reviews as well and they can use the scripts is a convenience if they want. Get ApproveFlexJS.xml from the release branch of flex-asjs. Put it in a new folder, run 'ant -e -f ApproveFlexJS.xml -Drelease.version=0.7.0' Get ApproveFalcon.xml from the release branch of flex-falcon. Put it in a new folder, run 'ant -e -f ApproveFalcon.xml -Drelease.version=0.7.0' Thanks, -Alex > >1. http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#3party
