Dennis,
Thank you for the checking. Very much appreciated.
Some comments/questions, if I may ...
On 23/11/11 00:42, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
Since IP clearance appears to have been done, I did an SVN update to take a
look at the latest organization of the code.
I am concerned that the NOTICE information may be incomplete.
For example, Jena2/jena/trunk/src/main/java/com/hp/hpl/jena/Jena.java
has the standard ALv2 "Licensed to" comment with its reference to the NOTICE
file.
A possible concern for handling before an incubation release is appropriate:
This file previously had a Copyright notice of Hewlett-Packard Development
Company, LP. At the foot of the page were the license conditions that applied
previously.
However, the first NOTICE file in the path back to Jena2 is
Jena2/jena/trunk/NOTICE, which says
Apache Jena
Copyright 2011 The Apache Software Foundation
This product includes software developed at
The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
which is incomplete. I suspect it is only used for projects that are
exclusively developed at the ASF.
This has always confused me a bit.
Even for code developed while at ASF, the copyright ownership is not
handed from contributor/employer to ASF, it's granted via an ICLA/CCLA.
If that's right, then a software grant from previous code is no
different to currently developed code.
In fact the CCLA says "it [the license] does not change your rights to
use you own Contributions for any othe purpose."
which I read as meaning you still copyright-own the contribution, and
have not handed copyright over to ASF.
[[
Clause 2: Grant of Copyright License.
]]
i.e. it's a license, not a transfer of copyright.
Is that right?
I don't see long lists of copyrights in other projects NOTICE files (not
that that is proof); I do see more in LICENSE than NOTICE.
Also, Jena2/jena/trunk/LICENSE
has the expected ALv2 and also a statement about code contributed by Plugged
In Software.
I believe the Plugged In Software notice goes in NOTICE
My mistake; it needs fixing. I thought the LICENSE file was sufficient
and correct.
While we may be able to redo the situation with Plugged In Software, it
will take an arbitrary length of time.
and that there must
also be something about the H-P Development Company copyright and source of
other code. If copyright was transferred (a mentor might be able to check),
the wording might be different, but something like the Plugged in Software
notice would be appropriate if not (and maybe even if copyright was
transferred).
HP granted to ASF; it was not a copyright transfer but is anything ever
a copyright transfer?
The Plugged In Software case is different - we are using BSD-licensed code.
(Any one want to rewrite the ExtendedHandler and remove the issue?)
I don't have access to all of the facts. I just noticed this situation and
thought it important to check to see if the current treatment is appropriate
with respect to SGA-covered code.
- Dennis
Very important.
Thanks,
Andy
