Re: [users@httpd] Copyright notices in httpd source files

2016-12-29 Thread Christopher Schultz
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Nick, On 12/29/16 3:56 AM, Nick Kew wrote: > Cc: dev list. Looks like a catch? (my reply might be bounced from the dev@ list... I don't think I'm subscribed) > On Wed, 2016-12-28 at 17:44 -0500, Christopher Schultz wrote: >> All, >> >> Is it com

Re: [users@httpd] Copyright notices in httpd source files

2016-12-29 Thread Jim Jagielski
I didn't know you guys were working on it. Cool. I had been working the donation angle for awhile and finally got approval so wanted to get it in quick! :) > On Dec 29, 2016, at 3:56 AM, Nick Kew wrote: > > Cc: dev list. Looks like a catch? > > On Wed, 2016-12-28 at 17:44 -0500, Christopher Sc

Re: [users@httpd] Copyright notices in httpd source files

2016-12-29 Thread Nick Kew
Cc: dev list. Looks like a catch? On Wed, 2016-12-28 at 17:44 -0500, Christopher Schultz wrote: > All, > > Is it common to have a copyright notice in httpd C source files? Not common, but neither is it unusual. I'd expect it to mean someone else copyrighted it before contributing it to apache.

Re: copyright notices

2006-04-24 Thread William A. Rowe, Jr.
Roy T. Fielding wrote: Wow, this discussion is getting out of hand. Ack, sorry for my contribution to the noise ratio, and our collective frustration, but it's clear the board's entirely failed the projects in this respect; we have alot of folks rethinking the same problem set, spread across

Re: copyright notices

2006-04-22 Thread Jim Jagielski
Roy T. Fielding wrote: > > None of that, however, changes the fact that I (as an ASF officer) > asked our lawyer for a legal opinion and received an answer to the > effect of "You are doing what? No, don't do that -- the law considers > it a misrepresentation, even if it does no harm to others."

Re: copyright notices

2006-04-21 Thread Joshua Slive
On 4/21/06, Roy T. Fielding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't know of any reason to hurry a 2.0.x release (heck, I don't > know of any reason to continue its development), but I also don't think > releasing one with modified copyright years is any more or less legal > than continuing to distrib

copyright notices

2006-04-21 Thread Roy T. Fielding
enses (CLAs and license grants) to the individual contributions. Thus, our old practice of copyright notices should have changed accordingly. Unfortunately (or fortunately), I am not a lawyer and did not know the finer details of US law regarding copyright notices, and never had a reason to discu