On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Ignasi Barrera <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for the quick reply David (I'm moving it to the dev@ list). > >> Only a person from Cisco would be authorized to do this generally >> speaking. If the contribution includes software from Cisco, then it >> needs to stay (and probably be annotated in NOTICE). If the >> contribution is from the author at Cisco, we should point them to the >> Source Header policy. Does that distinction make sense? (and I note >> you have) > > Yes, that distinction makes sense, as the author of the last pull > request is a Cisco employee (as per his comments), so I think it is > correct to request to remove the copyright notice from the header > files. >
Agreed. >> So a CCLA isn't required (unless the employer requires it) ICLA isn't >> technically required either unless you are a committer. Submitting a >> patch to the project triggers section 5 of the ASLv2 giving us that >> contribution under the same license. >> That said, we shouldn't be accepting contributions that don't comply >> with [4] unless that contribution includes 3rd-party work, in which >> case we ought not change the source. That doesn't look it's the case >> here. > > I think we all agree it is not a third party contribution. I suggested > to submit it just to make sure everyone had the terms and conditions > clear. Thanks for pointing to the section 5 of the license. > Yep >> Also; note that the source header is not a statement of >> copyright. It's explicitly not a statement of copyright, because the >> ASF doesn't hold the copyright individuals or companies do.. Some >> folks want (demand?) an attribution; you could conceivably put this in >> NOTICE; and I've seen other projects do that. >> Take a look at https: >> http://www.apache.org/licenses/example-NOTICE.txt > > Regarding the NOTICE file, I searched the "legal-discuss" mailing list > archive, and although there is the example notice giving attribution, > the threads I found there discouraged including this kind of > copyrights (otherwise most ASF commiters whould be filling the NOTICE > files with attributions to their employers that are already covered by > the CLAs, and NOTICE files are meant to be small and not to provide > redundant information). > > So, if I understand properly, as any other contribution under the > terms of the CLA, there is no need to include the attribution note in > the NOTICE file unless the contributor's employer explicitly requests > it? > That's correct. It's generally frowned upon, because we build software as a community, but the contributor (or their company) still owns the copyright and can ask for that to be explicitly called out. --David
