Re: Proposal for 10.2 release schedule
Daniel John Debrunner wrote: > Thomas Dudziak wrote: ... >>Btw, to which files does the COPYRIGHT containing an IBM copyright >>notice refer to ? A search in the Derby sources did not bring up any >>source copyrighted by IBM. > > The original contribution of Derby was from IBM, hence IBM has the > copyright on all those original files. The ASF policy is not to have > individiual copyright statements in each source file and the new policy > (I think) is to remove the copyright statement in each source file, > leaving just the reference to the Apache Licence in the source file. two clarifying notes ... The thread for the new policy starts at [1]. It moves only the ASF copyright to the NOTICE file [2]. Users interested in this change wrt to DERBY can track DERBY-1377 [3]. The derby NOTICE file [4] already references the IBM contribution, which ties back into Dan's point (I hope). -jean [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200606.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] [2] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200606.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] [3] http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-1377 [4] https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/db/derby/code/trunk/NOTICE
Re: Proposal for 10.2 release schedule
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >>-Original Message- >>From: Daniel John Debrunner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >>The original contribution of Derby was from IBM, hence IBM has the >>copyright on all those original files. The ASF policy is not to have >>individiual copyright statements in each source file and the new policy >>(I think) is to remove the copyright statement in each source file, >>leaving just the reference to the Apache Licence in the source file. >> >>Dan. > > > [mjs] > That would not be a good idea, and I suggest that you have IP attorneys from > IBM make a final recommendation on this. (No need for Apache to spend money > if IBM has the resources and its in IBM's best interest to do something.) > > Here's why: Michael, you should probably check out the legal-disucss mailing list archives, I'm sure all of this was covered. Dan.
Re: Proposal for 10.2 release schedule
Daniel John Debrunner wrote: > Thomas Dudziak wrote: tw, to which files does the COPYRIGHT containing an IBM copyright >>notice refer to ? A search in the Derby sources did not bring up any >>source copyrighted by IBM. > > > The original contribution of Derby was from IBM, hence IBM has the > copyright on all those original files. Just in case this wasn't clear, IBM holds the copyright on its contributions in those files, just like any other contributor to an Apache project. Contributors to an Apache project retain the copyright on their contributions, they are licencing it to the ASF under the Apache Licence Version 2. Dan.
RE: Proposal for 10.2 release schedule
> -Original Message- > From: Daniel John Debrunner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > The original contribution of Derby was from IBM, hence IBM has the > copyright on all those original files. The ASF policy is not to have > individiual copyright statements in each source file and the new policy > (I think) is to remove the copyright statement in each source file, > leaving just the reference to the Apache Licence in the source file. > > Dan. [mjs] That would not be a good idea, and I suggest that you have IP attorneys from IBM make a final recommendation on this. (No need for Apache to spend money if IBM has the resources and its in IBM's best interest to do something.) Here's why: Indemnification. Each contributor of Derby agrees to indemnify Apache in the case of a lawsuit due to copyright infringement. In simple terms, this means, if you contribute code, and then someone claims that said code violates either their copyright, patent or was stolen, then you and your company is on the hook for the cost of any legal challenge. By leaving the copyright notice intact, you're preserving the forensic information, thus making it easier to 1) determine the source of the alleged code, and 2) determine who's going to be ultimately responsible to defend the code... If you think this is hogwash, then ask yourself how much has IBM spent defending itself in the SCO suit. Regardless of merit, only Sun and IBM have deep enough pockets to pay for a defense. But hey! What do I know? Its not like I had to spend time with IBM legal on contracts over my tenure at IBM. ;-) -G
Re: Proposal for 10.2 release schedule
Thomas Dudziak wrote: > On 6/22/06, Rick Hillegas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Last week, Sun Microsystems announced that it will bundle Derby with the >> next major release of the reference jdk, Java SE 6, also known as >> Mustang or jdk1.6. If you download the latest Mustang build, you will >> see that it contains our Derby 10.2.0.3 snapshot in the "db" directory >> parallel to "lib" and "bin". > > > Is this Derby or JavaDB ? Sun Microsystems announced that it will bundle "Java DB" with Mustang. http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060621/sfw063.html?.v=66 > I imagine that the Derby update > cycle will synchronize somewhat with the JDK update cycle, I doubt Derby's release cycle will synchronize with the Sun's JDK release. Sun's JDK is just one of many that distribute Derby technology. http://wiki.apache.org/db-derby/UsesOfDerby > > Btw, to which files does the COPYRIGHT containing an IBM copyright > notice refer to ? A search in the Derby sources did not bring up any > source copyrighted by IBM. The original contribution of Derby was from IBM, hence IBM has the copyright on all those original files. The ASF policy is not to have individiual copyright statements in each source file and the new policy (I think) is to remove the copyright statement in each source file, leaving just the reference to the Apache Licence in the source file. Dan.
Re: Proposal for 10.2 release schedule
On 6/22/06, Rick Hillegas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Last week, Sun Microsystems announced that it will bundle Derby with the next major release of the reference jdk, Java SE 6, also known as Mustang or jdk1.6. If you download the latest Mustang build, you will see that it contains our Derby 10.2.0.3 snapshot in the "db" directory parallel to "lib" and "bin". Is this Derby or JavaDB ? I've had a quick look at the JDK, and I could not find a single link to the Derby project (nor to JavaDB for that matter), only a NOTICE stating that Derby is included. I think this should be changed, so that the unwary JDK user exactly knows where to look for info. Perhaps a README file would be the best place ? Also, I think the version info given should be more detailed by stating the exact Derby version (e.g. 10.2.0) once the JDK is finalized (probably in the README). I imagine that the Derby update cycle will synchronize somewhat with the JDK update cycle, and then the revision number (third part of the version number) becomes important. Btw, to which files does the COPYRIGHT containing an IBM copyright notice refer to ? A search in the Derby sources did not bring up any source copyrighted by IBM. This is big news. It means that over the course of the next year, Derby will turn up on the desktops of millions of developers. Hopefully, Derby's user and developer communities will both grow dramatically. Just out of curiosity, what is the reason that the JDK bundles a database (and the JRE does not) ? I mean, there was quite a few criticism in the blogosphere, so could you perhaps elaborate a bit ? cheers, Tom
