Great, thanks. Could you also take a look at the thread entitled "Assembling LICENSE and NOTICE" -- i.e., we need a mentor's perspective here to make sure we're taking the right approach.
Gj On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 10:01 PM, Ate Douma <a...@douma.nu> wrote: > On 2017-09-16 21:32, Craig Russell wrote: > >> Hi Ate, >> >> On Sep 12, 2017, at 10:19 AM, Ate Douma <a...@douma.nu> wrote: >>> 1. If the source file is submitted with a copyright notice included in >>> it, the >>> copyright owner (or owner's agent) must either: >>> a. remove such notices, or >>> b. move them to the NOTICE file associated with each applicable >>> project >>> release, or >>> c. provide written permission for the ASF to make such removal or >>> relocation of the notices. >>> >>> Now, in this case IMO the *SGA* (not the CCLA, which only applies for >>> new/future >>> code contributions) covers case c., e.g. provides the written permission >>> for the >>> ASF to remove/relocate the Oracle copyright notices. >>> >> >> My understanding is that there is no distinction made between an >> independent SGA and a CCLA with Schedule B. They both grant the same rights >> to Apache. >> > > Agreed, that also is my understanding. > > But the Oracle CCLA has no Schedule B, so their CCLA only applies to > new/future > contributions. And therefore I think only the SGA applies (and is needed) > here. > > Ate > > > >> Craig >> >> Craig L Russell >> Secretary, Apache Software Foundation >> c...@apache.org http://db.apache.org/jdo >> >> >
