On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 6:38 PM, John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 9:30 PM John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 9:27 PM Henri Yandell <bay...@apache.org> wrote: > > > >> Reverted to "Copyright Contributors"? > >> > >> > > Yes, for any file that we don't have full agreement (ICLA on file) we > > can't remove the copyright claim that already exists. Us receiving an > ICLA > > is what allows us to say "Licensed to the ASF" (it's in the ICLA). > > > > It's not a big deal, since its Apache licensed, we just have to be > careful > > we're removing someone's pre-existing claim. > > > > I'll give a more concrete example. > > Let's say I imported this file into an ASF repo > https://github.com/spring-projects/spring-framework/ > blob/v5.0.0.RC3/spring-core/src/main/java/org/springframework/util/ > StringUtils.java > > I wouldn't change the header to say licensed to the ASF. None of the > contributors have signed ICLAs. The file header would remain in tact. I > would also have to carry their notice file around > https://github.com/spring-projects/spring-framework/ > blob/v5.0.0.RC3/src/docs/dist/notice.txt > (at > least I'm assuming this is their NOTICE file, I can't find any others > around) > > For a concrete example with copyright Pivotal; sure - nice and easy. In this case we have 'Copyright Contributors'. It's an empty phrase that would just cause confusion. Because Contributor isn't defined, it looks like a repeat of our source header: "Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file distributed with this work for additional information regarding copyright ownership. ... " Perhaps the solution is to, in the NOTICE, state: Copyright 2015-2016 by Contributors Copyright 2017 The Apache Software Foundation Where we could change 'by Contributors' to be more descriptive, but I seem to recall lots of pushback at changing 3rd party source headers to make them more understandable. --- Note also that clause 5 of Apache 2.0 means that many of those 'contributor license agreements' are Apache 2.0 Licenses and not SGA/ICLA/CCLA. Its language should also cover something else published under Apache 2.0; ie) no need for a different Apache source header. Hen
