On Sat, 5 Mar 2005, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
Has there been any progress on the issue of "Copyright [yyyy] The Apache Software Foundation or its licensors, as applicable" vs "Copyright (c) 2001-2004 - Apache Software Foundation"?
During the past few weeks Robyn Wagner, Jennifer Machovec, Jim Barnett and I discussed this issue via email. I drafted for their review an email that I proposed to send to legal-discuss to summarize the legal requirements for copyright notices on Apache works; I now step up to the plate and copy that summary below. Both Jennifer and Jim agree that the summary is legally correct, but they worry that the Apache members "want" to do it differently. I have suggested that lawyers should tell clients what the law is, but it is up to the clients to decide whether to follow the law. So here it is (with apologies for its length) for your review and discussion:
*************************************
Thanks for the post. Very interesting (and mind-melting) stuff.
I've a couple of questions.
1) Does this apply just to entities (be it IBM or Joe Bloggs) who are actively enforcing their copyright via copyright statements, or is every commit of a new file or changed file without a copyright notice still owned by the committer?
2) The simplified explanation I'd been told a few years back (via hearsay, lists etc) was that when I commit to Apache, any copy of the code I keep for myself is under my copyright whilst the copy I commit to Apache is under their ownership. Is this possible? For two copies of the same thing to bear different copyright?
Thanks,
Hen
--------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
