OK. Sounds like a plan. Let's wait and see how David responds.
D. On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 10:18 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 10:06 AM, Richard Hirsch <[email protected]> wrote: >> Look at David's comment on the Jira Item: >> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ESME-47?focusedCommentId=12729407&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#action_12729407 > > Let me reply to those here then, as disccusion is probably easier here > than in JIRA. > IANAL - happy to have this clarified by ASF legal team if needed): > >> All the code that I have contributed is copyright WorldWide Conferencing, >> LLC. >> My reading of the license grant that I signed does not change the copyright >> holder. > > Agreed, no problem with that. > >> So, why should the assertion of copyright by the copyright holder be removed? > > Because over time source code gets edited by various people who each > retain copyright on their contributions, so saying " copyright XYZ" is > only true for parts of the file after some time. > > See http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#header-existingcopyright, > the recommended way is to move the copyright notices to a NOTICE file > if the copyright holder wants that. > >> In terms of the LiftConsole.scala, etc. files, those files were generated by >> the Lift archetype >> The copyright on those files continues to remain with WorldWide Conferencing, >> LLC. The license on those files (and all Lift files) is Apache 2.0. > > See my comments of today in ESME-47, that notice seems to be gone if > using recent versions of the Lift archetypes (except for one > unimportant file). > >> If there is further question about keeping the copyright in the file, please >> have one of >> the ASF lawyers contact me to discuss the various IP related issues. > > In light of the additional explanations in this thread, I'd like to > have David's current opinion about removing those notices. If he wants > to discuss this with legal folks, no problem with that, but I thought > we might take a more direct route if there's agreement. > > -Bertrand >
