David Jencks wrote:
On Apr 18, 2009, at 1:37 PM, Ate Douma wrote:
<snip/>
In addition, there is this license.txt within the source tree
containing the following:
� Copyright IBM Corp. 2006, 2007
All rights reserved.
Should that file remain or maybe should we move that statement to our
NOTICE.txt instead?
Furthermore, every portlet-api-2.0 source file also contains the
"Copyright 2006 IBM Corporation." in the header.
IIUC the recommended route is to move these copyright notices to the
NOTICE file. However someone from IBM has to do it. I'm from IBM but
right now I wouldn't be comfortable removing them without input from at
least one author or IBM legal. I'll ask my boss and see what happens.
David Jencks, do you have any feedback on this issue?
I'd like to move forward with this proposal ASAP but its a little unclear to me
how we can and/or are allowed to proceed now.
I would think at least we are allowed to *add* the ASF licence header to the sources while (for now) retaining the the IBM copyright notices
therein.
And the license.txt file I would think should be fine to be removed when we
move the content to our own NOTICE file.
The remaining question for me is, should we only provide the standard ASF LICENSE file, or should that in addition *also* contain the
content of the original IBM license.txt?
Thanks,
Ate
Note that none of such copyright statements are found in the
portlet-api-1.0 source, not even from SUN.
On the other hand, the portlet-api-1.0 sources do have the ASF 1.1
license header, not the 2.0 license header.
I'm not too familiar with what is required when a new release is put
out, but I think if we would do this, those need to be replaced with
ASF 2.0 license headers now, right?
yes, and I think we can do that without any legal arguments from anyone.
thanks
david jencks
Regards,
Ate
Carsten
