Leo,
Thanks. IANALE (Either).
IAN ALE is much nicer. IAN, ALE! is better still :-)
I removed mention of granted code from NOTICE because while watching
incubator-general@, it was mentioned that NOTICE should be minimal.
(sorry - it was a couple of months ago - not got a reference to hand ATM.)
As this matters, let me try to quote pages I can find and what has been
done as a result.
Please point out mistakes.
== http://incubator.apache.org/guides/mentor.html#initial-clean-up
"""
It is therefore recommended that the initial source is (after being
expanded from the archive) checked in as is into a special directory (
${project}/trunk/import is suggested). The original packaging, copyright
statements and license notices should be preserved. A standard Apache
LICENSE and appropriate NOTICE should be added at the top for the
copyright for the collective work (see policy ).
The original packaging, copyright statements and license notices should
be preserved.
"""
Yes - our import area is that.
** ACTION NEEDED
For the "collective work", we ought to have a NOTICE in the import root.
.../incubator/jena/Import/
== http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
[[
The remainder of the NOTICE file is to be used for required third-party
notices. The NOTICE file may also include copyright notices moved from
source files submitted to the ASF.
]]
"required third-party notices" is only PluggedIn Software and I'm taking
*may* as RFC 2119 "may", hence not required for HP granted material.
[[
Treatment of Third-Party Works
The term "third-party work" refers to a work not submitted directly to
the ASF by the copyright owner or owner's agent.
Do not modify or remove any copyright notices or licenses within
third-party works.
]]
These files contain some material from PluggIn Software:
src/main/java/com/hp/hpl/jena/rdf/arp/ExtendedHandler.java
src/main/java/com/hp/hpl/jena/rdf/arp/impl/XMLHandler.java
src/main/java/com/hp/hpl/jena/rdf/arp/ARP.java
they include ASF header and PluggedIn Software Copyright and License.
[[
Do ensure that every third-party work includes its associated license,
even if that requires adding a copy of the license from the third-party
download site into the distribution.
]]
It's BSD and so the license is in the source code.
(I was taught back, in HP days, that, for BSD license, the statement
must be in the file, not elsewhere. IANAL.).
[[
Do not add the standard Apache License header to the top of third-party
source files.
]]
It is additions to a file, not whole files.
[[
Minor modifications/additions to third-party source files should
typically be licensed under the same terms as the rest of the rest of
the third-party source for convenience.
Major modifications/additions to third-party should be dealt with on a
case-by-case basis by the PMC.
]]
[[ FAQ
Is it sufficient just to change the headers on files in trunk and active
branches?
Yes. Only active branches from which releases are cut need to be updated.
]]
which we have done. The import area has been left alone.
------------------------------
So, my understanding for that was for jena-core , we ought to mention
PluggedIn and not HP.
** ACTION NEEDED
Add mention of PluggedIn Software to jena-core NOTICE.
[DONE]
Removing ungranted copyright is bad. PluggedIn Software is the only
case in any of the bits and pieces.
Hopefully, this meets
> just apply the policy (above), and move on with your life
and we await incubator-general@
Andy
On 23/11/11 10:50, Leo Simons wrote:
Hey hey,
http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
NOTICE file
----
* Every Apache distribution should include a NOTICE file in the top
directory, along with the standard LICENSE file.
* The top of each NOTICE file should include the following text,
suitably modified to reflect the product name and year(s) of
distribution of the current and past versions of the product:
Apache [PRODUCT_NAME]
Copyright [yyyy] The Apache Software Foundation
This product includes software developed at
The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
* The remainder of the NOTICE file is to be used for required
third-party notices.
* The NOTICE file may also include copyright notices moved from source
files submitted to the ASF."
Source File Headers for Code Developed at the ASF
----
This section refers only to works submitted directly to the ASF by the
copyright owner or owner's agent.
If the source file is submitted with a copyright notice included in
it, the copyright owner (or owner's agent) must either:
* remove such notices, or
* move them to the NOTICE file associated with each applicable project
release, or
* provide written permission for the ASF to make such removal or
relocation of the notices."
(...)
So, IF the person who removed copyright notices was doing so on behalf
of the copyright owner, that's fine and nothing else needs to happen.
BUT IF that is not the case, that person should put those same
copyright notices into the NOTICE file.
I think in this specific case none of our committers are acting on
behalf of HP (working at different companies now and the like), so the
copyright notices should be moved into the NOTICE file. For a
particularly nice example, see
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/harmony/enhanced/java/trunk/NOTICE
Portions of Apache Harmony were originally developed by
Intel Corporation and are licensed to the Apache Software
Foundation under the "Software Grant and Corporate Contribution
License Agreement" and for which the following copyright notices
apply
(C) Copyright 2005 Intel Corporation
(C) Copyright 2005-2006 Intel Corporation
(C) Copyright 2006 Intel Corporation
I suggest using the above as a template. You can be pretty sure a
whole bunch of lawyers will have looked at that one :-)
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Andy Seaborne<[email protected]> wrote:
This has always confused me a bit.
Me too. IANAL. I think the key bit to understand is that copyright
does not need to be claimed in order to be owned. I.e. HP has
copyright on the source code it donated to apache, apache has a
license. You have copyright on your ongoing contributions, apache has
a license. Apache has copyright on the collective work. Other parties
may have some copyrights too that aren't mentioned -- what ultimately
matters is that apache has sufficient rights to license the code to
everyone else.
The NOTICE file should contain those things it legally needs to
contain (i.e. when a LICENSE or a LAW instructs what must be in a
NOTICE...). Apparently, removing copyright notices outright is bad
unless they are "yours", but moving them is "ok". Don't think about it
too much, just apply the policy (above), and move on with your life
:-)
Or, have fun with
http://copyright.gov/title17/92chap4.html
http://copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html
if you want to know more...
cheers,
Leo
