So it sounds like we probably won't be making any "major" changes from an IP standpoint anytime soon. I would guess that a "major" change would generally require a PIP, so there would be some review process at that point to decide on copyright headers.
The thing I don't understand, then, is why there is a distinction between new and existing files. It's somewhat arbitrary whether we choose to put code into new files or existing files. If new files are also part of a derivative work of the original library, then what's the justification for including the ASF header there versus the Lightbend header? "New" files could easily contain code that was moved or copied from files that are under Lightbend copyright, unless we are careful about it and figure out a way to nicely separate that code. Should we just ignore that problem for now? On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 2:15 PM Justin Mclean <[email protected]> wrote: > HI, > > For context, where this has been discussed before, major changes mean > significant changes to IP, so reformatting is not a major change, renaming > things is not a major change, an update to support a new language version > or porting to another language would not be a major change. Even if a large > amount of the text changes, it may not be a major change from an IP point > of view. As Claude said, you would need to significantly change the > functionality or the algorithm for it to be considered a major change. A > major change is when it stops being a derivative of the original and its > something entirely new and original. > > Kind Regards, > Justin > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
