Re: IP clearance clarification: copyright notices
Hi Alex, On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 7:32 PM, Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com wrote: ...Copyright law, AIUI, prevents the receiving project from moving copyrights without the copyright owner’s permission. Thus, if the donor has time to insert Apache headers and move copyrights to NOTICE, that is very helpful, but if the donor is short on time, he can give someone in the receiving project permission to do so Very good point, so for my point 1) above (moving any existing non-Apache copyright notices to a NOTICE file) we could clarify that this needs to be done either by the donators before submitting their code, or by us with written permission from them. With people's comments here it looks like we need to clarify that clause indeed, I'll wait a bit for other opinions before doing that. -Bertrand - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: IP clearance clarification: copyright notices
Hi, On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 11:14 PM, Stian Soiland-Reyes soiland-re...@cs.manchester.ac.uk wrote: For our incubator project (Taverna), we saw the need to reorganize our current git repositories... We therefore have made a separate staging area on Github, and then basically we will move from github.com/taverna/* to github.com/taverna-incubator/* step by step Ok, that resonates with the quarantine space idea, he you did that externally but we can also suggest an internal quarantine are (which might be just a folder with this name) when code that's not fully cleaned up is imported. -Bertrand - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: IP clearance clarification: copyright notices
Right, good idea If you do the internal area, I would ensure it is not publicly visible to non-apache.org users then. In Github we can get away with it as it is a bit cowboy land (most small projects don't even state their license!!).. but you wouldn't want to end up with projects that live too long in Apache Incubator quarantine space! :) On 14 November 2014 09:15, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote: Hi, On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 11:14 PM, Stian Soiland-Reyes soiland-re...@cs.manchester.ac.uk wrote: For our incubator project (Taverna), we saw the need to reorganize our current git repositories... We therefore have made a separate staging area on Github, and then basically we will move from github.com/taverna/* to github.com/taverna-incubator/* step by step Ok, that resonates with the quarantine space idea, he you did that externally but we can also suggest an internal quarantine are (which might be just a folder with this name) when code that's not fully cleaned up is imported. -Bertrand - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org -- Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team School of Computer Science The University of Manchester http://soiland-reyes.com/stian/work/ http://orcid.org/-0001-9842-9718 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: IP clearance clarification: copyright notices
Hi, On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Stian Soiland-Reyes soiland-re...@cs.manchester.ac.uk wrote: (about the quarantine folder) ...good idea If you do the internal area, I would ensure it is not publicly visible to non-apache.org users then... That's not needed IMO, as long as we don't release the code it's fine to have code in our svn/git repositories that's not fully ready in terms of license headers etc. I see putting those things under a quarantine folder only as a warning to the PMC that such code shouldn't be released as is. -Bertrand - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: IP clearance clarification: copyright notices
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 1:13 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote: On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 7:32 PM, Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com wrote: ...Copyright law, AIUI, prevents the receiving project from moving copyrights without the copyright owner’s permission. Thus, if the donor has time to insert Apache headers and move copyrights to NOTICE, that is very helpful, but if the donor is short on time, he can give someone in the receiving project permission to do so Very good point, so for my point 1) above (moving any existing non-Apache copyright notices to a NOTICE file) we could clarify that this needs to be done either by the donators before submitting their code, or by us with written permission from them. With people's comments here it looks like we need to clarify that clause indeed, I'll wait a bit for other opinions before doing that. The two legal imperatives are: 1. Any code we host must at all times be legal to distribute. 2. Only the copyright owner or their authorized agent may modify copyright notices. In addition, there is the policy imperative that individual ALv2 source files must eventually contain our ASF-specific header, and the related social/policy imperative that such files must not contain copyright notices. An important relaxation applies during the quarantine period: 1. While imported code must at all times be legal for us to distribute, it need not adhere to our policies. For example, it may contain GPL headers. So long as the task of modifying headers and copyright notices gets done correctly, technically it doesn't matter whether it happens prior to the first commit or immediately following. I have a mild preference for capturing such changes in version control, though, so that they may be reviewed more easily by the PMC and documented for posterity. Marvin Humphrey - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: IP clearance clarification: copyright notices
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 5:18 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote: Hi, In the vote thread about [1] a question came up about the following clause, from our IP clearance form: Check and make sure that the files that have been donated have been updated to reflect the new ASF copyright. I think this actually covers two distinct things: 1) Moving any existing non-Apache copyright notices to a NOTICE file, if the owner of the donated code wants that, or otherwise removing them or making them smaller to avoid bloating the code with multiple copyright notices., if possible. All done by whoever donates the code - as per the Should a project move non-ASF copyright notices from Apache source files to the NOTICE file? section in [2], we don't want to that ourselves. 2) Adding Apache copyright/license headers where required IMO there's no need for 2) to happen before the donation, that just has to happen before the first release of that code. [2] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html I agree with this. The FAQ at the bottom of [2] says that it applies to all releases occurring after $date. Source without ASF headers is not an issue until you release. (And indeed, many things that we don't release do not contain such headers.) 1) should be taken care of before the IP Clearance. As Marvin notes below, the inclusion of a header does not change its legal status, it merely is present for clarity (and because policy demands it in released files) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: IP clearance clarification: copyright notices
On 14 November 2014 21:38, David Nalley da...@gnsa.us wrote: On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 5:18 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote: Hi, In the vote thread about [1] a question came up about the following clause, from our IP clearance form: Check and make sure that the files that have been donated have been updated to reflect the new ASF copyright. I think this actually covers two distinct things: 1) Moving any existing non-Apache copyright notices to a NOTICE file, if the owner of the donated code wants that, or otherwise removing them or making them smaller to avoid bloating the code with multiple copyright notices., if possible. All done by whoever donates the code - as per the Should a project move non-ASF copyright notices from Apache source files to the NOTICE file? section in [2], we don't want to that ourselves. 2) Adding Apache copyright/license headers where required IMO there's no need for 2) to happen before the donation, that just has to happen before the first release of that code. [2] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html I agree with this. The FAQ at the bottom of [2] says that it applies to all releases occurring after $date. Source without ASF headers is not an issue until you release. (And indeed, many things that we don't release do not contain such headers.) I am sorry, but I really do not understand why the release is THE moment. If we wait to change the headers until a release, but do other changes in the file before that, these changes are done with the old license, and as a consequence, headers can only be changed with the written approval of the original donator as well as the people who have made changes later (independent whether or not they have filed a icla).why do we want that extra complication. Remeber the license in the file precedes any cla the developer might or might not have filed. I agree that for files without changes a release is the latest moment. rgds jan I. 1) should be taken care of before the IP Clearance. As Marvin notes below, the inclusion of a header does not change its legal status, it merely is present for clarity (and because policy demands it in released files) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
IP clearance clarification: copyright notices
Hi, In the vote thread about [1] a question came up about the following clause, from our IP clearance form: Check and make sure that the files that have been donated have been updated to reflect the new ASF copyright. I think this actually covers two distinct things: 1) Moving any existing non-Apache copyright notices to a NOTICE file, if the owner of the donated code wants that, or otherwise removing them or making them smaller to avoid bloating the code with multiple copyright notices., if possible. All done by whoever donates the code - as per the Should a project move non-ASF copyright notices from Apache source files to the NOTICE file? section in [2], we don't want to that ourselves. 2) Adding Apache copyright/license headers where required IMO there's no need for 2) to happen before the donation, that just has to happen before the first release of that code. Do people agree? Shall we reformulate that requirement to better express that it's only 1) that's relevant before accepting the donated code? -Bertrand [1] http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/sling-sightly-xss.html [2] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: IP clearance clarification: copyright notices
On 13 November 2014 11:18, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote: Hi, In the vote thread about [1] a question came up about the following clause, from our IP clearance form: Check and make sure that the files that have been donated have been updated to reflect the new ASF copyright. I think this actually covers two distinct things: 1) Moving any existing non-Apache copyright notices to a NOTICE file, if the owner of the donated code wants that, or otherwise removing them or making them smaller to avoid bloating the code with multiple copyright notices., if possible. All done by whoever donates the code - as per the Should a project move non-ASF copyright notices from Apache source files to the NOTICE file? section in [2], we don't want to that ourselves. 2) Adding Apache copyright/license headers where required IMO there's no need for 2) to happen before the donation, that just has to happen before the first release of that code. I dont agree with that statement. I would very much prefer: that just has to happen as the first change (commit) to the files, and no later than the first release. In my opinion its important that all changes to the code happens after the license header is in place. Do people agree? Shall we reformulate that requirement to better express that it's only 1) that's relevant before accepting the donated code? agreed, with my little change. rgds jan I. Ps. I like your idea of putting the original code in a quarantine area of svn/git. -Bertrand [1] http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/sling-sightly-xss.html [2] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: IP clearance clarification: copyright notices
On 11/13/14, 2:18 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote: Hi, In the vote thread about [1] a question came up about the following clause, from our IP clearance form: Check and make sure that the files that have been donated have been updated to reflect the new ASF copyright. I think this actually covers two distinct things: 1) Moving any existing non-Apache copyright notices to a NOTICE file, if the owner of the donated code wants that, or otherwise removing them or making them smaller to avoid bloating the code with multiple copyright notices., if possible. All done by whoever donates the code - as per the Should a project move non-ASF copyright notices from Apache source files to the NOTICE file? section in [2], we don't want to that ourselves. 2) Adding Apache copyright/license headers where required IMO there's no need for 2) to happen before the donation, that just has to happen before the first release of that code. Do people agree? Shall we reformulate that requirement to better express that it's only 1) that's relevant before accepting the donated code? Hi Bertrand, The way I’ve interpreted this is that the “donation” occurs when the donor submits the software grant and secretary records it. All the donor is saying by submitting the grant is “I’m ok with you having this list of things” and makes no guarantees that the list of things are acceptable to Apache. A friend can give me a gift of a food basket without realizing I’m allergic to one of the things in there. The IP clearance process is where the receiving project makes the list of things acceptable to Apache. It can toss out things that Apache is allergic to and do other preparations before it lands in an Apache repo. Maybe it can wait until first release or first commit, but IMO, I’ve been trying to make the headers right before it hits the repo by running RAT before committing. Copyright law, AIUI, prevents the receiving project from moving copyrights without the copyright owner’s permission. Thus, if the donor has time to insert Apache headers and move copyrights to NOTICE, that is very helpful, but if the donor is short on time, he can give someone in the receiving project permission to do so. So, IMO, there is no need for any copyright mucking before the donation is accepted, as long as there are people with the time and permission to muck with it after, but it sure helps. Flex did take a donation where I fixed up the headers for the donor because the donor was short on time and didn’t want to create another place to store a branch of the code with modified headers. The donor’s code was already on GitHub and it felt strange to have him change his headers in the public GitHub copy or one of its branches. So I got explicit written (email) permission and fixed up the headers myself before submitting the package for IP clearance. That’s my understanding based on what I think I learned from you and the Adobe legal folks. -Alex
Re: IP clearance clarification: copyright notices
I think it's good to be flexible here depending on the project's needs. A fresh project might need more help that is easiest to achieve after transitioning the code to Apache. Some of the terminology of the incubator assumes the incubator project is showing up on the Apache doorstep with a USB key full of source-code that have never before been on the Internet - this might need some updating to also cater for the modern reality of distributed and ad-hoc collaboration on open source using tools like git/mercurial, Github and Bitbucket. Being picky about the first commit after incubation seems a bit daft - after all a source code import should include the full history, and that historical source-code would most likely not have the right copyright/license headers. The hard deadline must be for the first release, though. For our incubator project (Taverna), we saw the need to reorganize our current git repositories (which were a bit too numerous) as part of the incubation process. We therefore have made a separate staging area on Github, and then basically we will move from github.com/taverna/* to github.com/taverna-incubator/* step by step. Another reason why we have to do this is that requesting additional git repositores at git.apache.org is a bit more heavyweight compared to [New repository] button on Github - so we must get the repository names etc. right to start with. But this also allows us to sort out bureaucratic things without affecting the existing repositories, which are still in daily use (in preparing a last non-Apache-release). It is therefore not any problem to change licenses, groupIds and copyrights within that staging repository. But that staging-incubation model would probably be too heavy for the hobby projects that are growing up and just have a single repository, or for large commercial projects which don't want to publish as open-source until it is under Apache. On 13 November 2014 18:32, Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com wrote: On 11/13/14, 2:18 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote: Hi, In the vote thread about [1] a question came up about the following clause, from our IP clearance form: Check and make sure that the files that have been donated have been updated to reflect the new ASF copyright. I think this actually covers two distinct things: 1) Moving any existing non-Apache copyright notices to a NOTICE file, if the owner of the donated code wants that, or otherwise removing them or making them smaller to avoid bloating the code with multiple copyright notices., if possible. All done by whoever donates the code - as per the Should a project move non-ASF copyright notices from Apache source files to the NOTICE file? section in [2], we don't want to that ourselves. 2) Adding Apache copyright/license headers where required IMO there's no need for 2) to happen before the donation, that just has to happen before the first release of that code. Do people agree? Shall we reformulate that requirement to better express that it's only 1) that's relevant before accepting the donated code? Hi Bertrand, The way I’ve interpreted this is that the “donation” occurs when the donor submits the software grant and secretary records it. All the donor is saying by submitting the grant is “I’m ok with you having this list of things” and makes no guarantees that the list of things are acceptable to Apache. A friend can give me a gift of a food basket without realizing I’m allergic to one of the things in there. The IP clearance process is where the receiving project makes the list of things acceptable to Apache. It can toss out things that Apache is allergic to and do other preparations before it lands in an Apache repo. Maybe it can wait until first release or first commit, but IMO, I’ve been trying to make the headers right before it hits the repo by running RAT before committing. Copyright law, AIUI, prevents the receiving project from moving copyrights without the copyright owner’s permission. Thus, if the donor has time to insert Apache headers and move copyrights to NOTICE, that is very helpful, but if the donor is short on time, he can give someone in the receiving project permission to do so. So, IMO, there is no need for any copyright mucking before the donation is accepted, as long as there are people with the time and permission to muck with it after, but it sure helps. Flex did take a donation where I fixed up the headers for the donor because the donor was short on time and didn’t want to create another place to store a branch of the code with modified headers. The donor’s code was already on GitHub and it felt strange to have him change his headers in the public GitHub copy or one of its branches. So I got explicit written (email) permission and fixed up the headers myself before submitting the package for IP clearance. That’s my understanding based on what I think I learned from you and the Adobe legal folks.