My manager thinks it's OK for me, as an IBM employee, to update the
sources to conform with apache standards, I will try to get to it
today or tomorrow.
thanks
david jencks
On May 4, 2009, at 4:35 PM, David Jencks wrote:
Hi Ate,
I haven't heard back from my manager yet, I pinged him again. I
think it's ok to add the apache license header for now, but it would
definitely be better to get it fixed, especially as the existing
license.txt file does not contain a license at all.
thanks
david jencks
On May 4, 2009, at 3:26 AM, Ate Douma wrote:
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
