David, Let me know at which point I become a pain in my inquiry about this. It's really not my intention. I'm still looking for a model that I can use to offer contributions with the least amount of administrative work necessary from the sandbox to the ASF. Copying the manner that OFBiz is able to place the copyright ASF placard on every file without notice of other copyright holders in that file would seem the path of least resistance. I'm trying to find the legal theory being used as my understanding is that there is only a license grant being offered from contributors and not copyright assignment with the Apache License v2.
If I'm able to make a valid claim to copyright and exclude other holders, then I'm able to appropriately grant license to the ASF. If the ASF doesn't hold copyright in it's entirety, then I would think this would need to be clarified somewhere inside the project(ie LICENSE or NOTICE files). Even failing that need, the only thing I'm finding on apache.org is the intent to gain copyright ownership approved in past board minutes but never an actual vehicle to attain copyright ownership. ie used the google search site:www.apache.org copyright assignment Can you point me to a definitive place for this answer? TIA, Chris --- "David E. Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Chris, > > Do you mean the NOTICE and LICENSE files in OFBiz? > You'll only find > information on libraries included and their > corresponding licenses in > those files. > > I recommend looking on the apache.org site for > general information > about the ASF and its policies. > > -David > > > On Jan 14, 2007, at 9:22 PM, Chris Howe wrote: > > > David, > > Can you point me to where the copyright policy > > addresses the contributors as being the copyright > > holders for the OFBiz code instead of ASF? > <inquiring > > tone, not skepticism> I'm not seeing them in > NOTICE > > or LICENSE, but they are rather long :-) > > > > TIA, > > Chris > > > > --- "David E. Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > >> > >> Chris, > >> > >> Have you read the ASF licensing and copyright > policy > >> documents? They > >> address this, and in general this sort of thing > in > >> pretty good detail. > >> > >> Don't worry, you're not the first to notice this. > >> > >> As for copyright statements in other projects: > there > >> are certain > >> cases where the files are not 100% licensed > through > >> the ASF, but are > >> rather a combination of third party code and code > >> developer for/ > >> through the ASF. Also not that while it is the > >> responsibility of > >> committers to monitor this sort of thing in > patches > >> and their own > >> work, we do sometimes make mistakes. In general > for > >> the OFBiz code it > >> has been thoroughly reviewed and such things well > >> vetted through the > >> incubation process. > >> > >> -David > >> > >> > >> On Jan 14, 2007, at 8:45 PM, Chris Howe wrote: > >> > >>> While searching for more answers on how to make > >> the > >>> ofbiz-sandbox ASF friendly (both legally and ASF > >>> administrative safe guard wise), I came across a > >>> distinction between contributions to the Free > >> Software > >>> Foundation (FSF) and contributions to the ASF > that > >> I > >>> think may have been inadequately addressed in > >> OFBiz. > >>> IANAL. > >>> > >>> Contributions to FSF require a copyright > >> assignment, > >>> while contributions to ASF generally, simply > grant > >>> license of use, modification, etc. This > >> distinction > >>> allows FSF software to carry the copyright > notice > >>> "Copyright YYYY The Free Software Foundation" by > >>> itself. > >>> > >>> I looked at a couple of the other ASF TLPs and > >> noticed > >>> they were either missing a copyright notice in > >>> individual files or in the case of Geronimo, had > >> the > >>> following: > >>> > >>> * Copyright 2004, 2005 The Apache Software > >> Foundation > >>> or its licensors, as applicable. > >>> > >>> I only looked at a couple files, so this is no > >> where > >>> near a comprehensive search. As it is now, > nearly > >>> every file in OFBiz says: > >>> > >>> Copyright 2001-2006 The Apache Software > >> Foundation > >>> > >>> Which perhaps in and of itself is a copyright > >>> violation. One for the beginning year (it may be > >>> materially false as I wouldn't think a copyright > >> can > >>> be assigned retroactively) and two for the > >> exclusion > >>> of those who may actually have the copyright > (the > >>> author, etc). To my knowledge, there was no > >> request > >>> to the community for copyright assignment. > >>> > >>> I hope no one construes this as causing a fuss > or > >> as a > >>> distraction. One of the reasons for the move to > >> the > >>> ASF for the project, as I understood it, was a > >>> proactive step to avoid legal hassles. I just > >> want us > >>> to take advantage of that benefit and protect > all > >> of > >>> our hard work. > >>> > >>> TIA for your feedback, > >>> Chris > >> > >> > > > >
