Re: Apache license and machine-readable copyright
Giovanni Mascellani g.mascell...@gmail.com wrote: Il giorno lun, 16/02/2009 alle 17.19 +, MJ Ray ha scritto: [...] Can you copy the owner names out of the NOTICE file into the Copyright field? Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation is not the copyright holder, so does not conform to http://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/CopyrightFormat#head-d1d2adac8db71e98883d5b052e3ad1760b51ed80 which is the specification of MaRCopyright that I know about. This is exactly the problem: I don't know who these people are. This is happening for two different and independent upstream: they've picked a file from an Apache project un put it into their project. So there is no NOTICE file in those upstream projects? What are they? If so, then sorry, but I think we can't tell whether we have a suitable copyright licence because you don't know who the holders are. There seems no confirmation whether the person who stuck the Apache licence on the files had the right to do so. We've had many similar problems in the past, so that wouldn't be a surprise and it's nothing to be ashamed of. Often they're fixed easily by asking upstream who are the copyright holders? and I hope this is the same. But the problem isn't my upstream, but the Apache Software Foundation, because it's the ASF itself that doesn't revel the people behind the copyright, but rather says licensed to the ASF This is the same license which applies to, for instance, the apache2 software, which is in main. So I don't think this is a legal problem. I just checked and apache2-2.2.3/NOTICE states The Apache Software Foundation as the copyright holder, which is correctly shown in /usr/share/doc/apache2/copyright in debian (but not machine-readable). I think this problem is with your upstreams messing up license application, not the Apache Software Foundation. There might be another, more general problem that the ASF is not giving clear enough instruction, but there's also this problem with your upstreams. But I don't know how to fit this situation in the machine-readable copyright format. Should I just discard che Copyright: field? Maybe the copyright format proposal should be amended in order to allow this sort of situations. No, please don't discard the Copyright: field. I don't think the copyright format proposal should be amended in order to allow incomplete licensing information. I mean, this has been useful, drawing attention to a licensing bug. Regards, -- MJ Ray (slef) Webmaster for hire, statistician and online shop builder for a small worker cooperative http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ (Notice http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html) tel:+44-844-4437-237 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Apache license and machine-readable copyright
Hi all! I have a couple of packages which contain files with a copyright notice like this: /* * Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more * contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file distributed with * this work for additional information regarding copyright ownership. * The ASF licenses this file to You under the Apache License, Version 2.0 * (the License); you may not use this file except in compliance with * the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at * * http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 * * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software * distributed under the License is distributed on an AS IS BASIS, * WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. * See the License for the specific language governing permissions and * limitations under the License. */ I'm not sure how to describe this in a machine-readable copyright record. I've searched around, in debian-legal archive and on the wiki, but couldn't find anything. The notice quoted above doesn't report anything about the copyright holder, so I'm not sure about what to put in the Copyright: field. So far, I've used this form: Files: validator/src/org/openstreetmap/josm/plugins/validator/util/Entities.java Copyright: Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation License: Apache-2.0 Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file distributed with this work for additional information regarding copyright ownership. The ASF licenses this file to You under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the License); you may not use this file except in compliance with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at . http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 . Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software distributed under the License is distributed on an AS IS BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. See the License for the specific language governing permissions and limitations under the License. . On Debian systems the full test of the Apache 2.0 license can be found in the `/usr/share/common-licenses/Apache-2.0' file. Is it correct? If not, what should I write? Thanks, Giovanni. (please, Cc: me, as I'm not subscriber to d-l) -- Giovanni Mascellani g.mascell...@gmail.com Pisa, Italy Web: http://giomasce.altervista.org SIP: g.mascell...@ekiga.net Jabber: g.mascell...@jabber.org / giova...@elabor.homelinux.org GPG: 0x5F1FBF70 (FP: 1EB6 3D43 E201 4DDF 67BD 003F FCB0 BB5C 5F1F BF70) signature.asc Description: Questa è una parte del messaggio firmata digitalmente
Re: Apache license and machine-readable copyright
Giovanni Mascellani g.mascell...@gmail.com wrote: [...] I'm not sure how to describe this in a machine-readable copyright record. I've searched around, in debian-legal archive and on the wiki, but couldn't find anything. The notice quoted above doesn't report anything about the copyright holder, so I'm not sure about what to put in the Copyright: field. So far, I've used this form: Files: validator/src/org/openstreetmap/josm/plugins/validator/util/Entities.java Copyright: Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation License: Apache-2.0 Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file distributed with this work for additional information regarding copyright ownership. [...] Can you copy the owner names out of the NOTICE file into the Copyright field? Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation is not the copyright holder, so does not conform to http://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/CopyrightFormat#head-d1d2adac8db71e98883d5b052e3ad1760b51ed80 which is the specification of MaRCopyright that I know about. Hope that helps, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Apache license and machine-readable copyright
Il giorno lun, 16/02/2009 alle 17.19 +, MJ Ray ha scritto: So far, I've used this form: Files: validator/src/org/openstreetmap/josm/plugins/validator/util/Entities.java Copyright: Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation License: Apache-2.0 Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file distributed with this work for additional information regarding copyright ownership. [...] Can you copy the owner names out of the NOTICE file into the Copyright field? Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation is not the copyright holder, so does not conform to http://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/CopyrightFormat#head-d1d2adac8db71e98883d5b052e3ad1760b51ed80 which is the specification of MaRCopyright that I know about. This is exactly the problem: I don't know who these people are. This is happening for two different and independent upstream: they've picked a file from an Apache project un put it into their project. But the problem isn't my upstream, but the Apache Software Foundation, because it's the ASF itself that doesn't revel the people behind the copyright, but rather says licensed to the ASF This is the same license which applies to, for instance, the apache2 software, which is in main. So I don't think this is a legal problem. But I don't know how to fit this situation in the machine-readable copyright format. Should I just discard che Copyright: field? Maybe the copyright format proposal should be amended in order to allow this sort of situations. Regards, Giovanni. -- Giovanni Mascellani g.mascell...@gmail.com Pisa, Italy Web: http://giomasce.altervista.org SIP: g.mascell...@ekiga.net Jabber: g.mascell...@jabber.org / giova...@elabor.homelinux.org GPG: 0x5F1FBF70 (FP: 1EB6 3D43 E201 4DDF 67BD 003F FCB0 BB5C 5F1F BF70) signature.asc Description: Questa è una parte del messaggio firmata digitalmente
