Should we ping David? I am not sure he reads all emails on the list these days.
/Anne On 8. jan. 2010, at 10.23, Richard Hirsch wrote: > 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 >>
