On Jul 16, 2012, at 3:16 PM, Rob Weir wrote: > On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton > <dennis.hamil...@acm.org> wrote: >> I suggest that one not be so careless about asserting ASF copyright on third >> party materials. >> >> Why does this meme persist? >> > > Why is there a copyright notice on the ASF home page? I assume that > is a copyright on the arrangement and selection of pages, as well as > the look and feel as set by the CSS, etc. The ASF, via the > collaboration of its members, create a website that is not merely the > sum of the individual pages, but is a creative work in itself, similar > to a copyright that can exist on an anthology of poetry independent of > the copyright for the individual poems. > > >> Please consult Legal before doing anything so outrageous. >> > > I don't see the outrage here with there being a copyright on the ASF > homepage. Remember, *all* material on Apache websites is 3rd party, > unless done as a work for hire by an Apache employee. The iCLA does > not assign copyright to Apache. So we're not asserting a copyright on > 3rd party material.
Agreed. > > Note that we do the same thing in every Apache release, when we put an > ASF copyright statement in the NOTICE file. Is that also an "outrage" > against 3rd party contributions? > > Maybe the key is to find a way to make it clear that the copyright is > on the site as a whole, but that individual pages remain under the > copyright of their individual authors? I haven't read the entire discussion thread. Is that really necessary? Just double checking -- this material is apache licensed? --kevan
