I've been lurking on the Derby list, and there's a discussion about
code copyright. Why isn't all the code (c) ASF?
--
Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m)
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
I've been lurking on the Derby list, and there's a discussion
about code copyright. Why isn't all the code (c) ASF?
The files should all have the AL v2. The license file provided includes the
copyright. Any other notices, such as historical credits, go into the
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
I've been lurking on the Derby list, and there's a discussion
about code copyright. Why isn't all the code (c) ASF?
The files should all have the AL v2. The license file provided includes the
copyright. Any other notices, such as historical credits, go into the
Noel J. Bergman wrote on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 12:09 AM:
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
I've been lurking on the Derby list, and there's a discussion
about code copyright. Why isn't all the code (c) ASF?
The files should all have the AL v2. The license file provided
includes the
On Sep 15, 2004, at 2:50 PM, Cliff Schmidt wrote:
IIUC, it is the ASF's policy that all copyright notices,
particularly in a distribution should read Copyright The
Apache Software Foundation.
That is correct. 2 main issues with any codebase
that the ASF develops is that (1) it be under the
That is correct. 2 main issues with any codebase
that the ASF develops is that (1) it be under the
Apache License and (2) that the Copyright be assigned
to the ASF.
So it must be licensed by the ASF (via the AL) and
owned by the ASF.
That is not correct: CLAs and software grants are licenses,
not
We've just finished a conference with Jennifer. As I understand it, her
issues are not with the practice but with how to implement that practice
properly. As I understand Roy's comment, the practice is correct, but the
legal magic is that IBM needs to be the party that does it.
--- Noel
Just an idea but, how about someone writes a shell script that does the
change and get someone at IBM to execute it?
-dain
On Sep 15, 2004, at 2:19 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
We've just finished a conference with Jennifer. As I understand it,
her
issues are not with the practice but with how
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
how about someone writes a shell script that does the
change and get someone at IBM to execute it?
As I understand it, it doesn't matter how they make the change, so long as
they are the ones who commit it.
--- Noel
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
That is correct. 2 main issues with any codebase
that the ASF develops is that (1) it be under the
Apache License and (2) that the Copyright be assigned
to the ASF.
So it must be licensed by the ASF (via the AL) and
owned by the ASF.
That is not correct:
Hello. I am one of BEA's attorneys. I've been working with Cliff Schmidt and the BEA
Workshop team in connection with BEA's Beehive contribution to Apache, and in that
context have considered the issue being discussed on the thread I've cut and pasted
below (i.e., whether it is appropriate
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
The alternative being that we start asking for copyright assignments.
I assume that was the case?
.V
ps/ot:
http://jroller.com/page/erAck/20040915#sun_ms_covenant_and_openoffice
BTW, I don't claim that my workaround of having the copyright owner
change the copyright notice
Brian Behlendorf wrote:
The original copyright notice shouldn't be thrown
away of course, but perhaps moved to another part of the package to
denote its historic origin?
Brian
I agree Brian ;-)
This would be wrong:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=geronimo-devm=106875482022176w=2
.V
--
Jim Barnett wrote:
Also, having owners assign copyrights to ASF would probably be a mistake. First, ASF really doesn't have the resources or (I would guess) the interest in enforcing copyrights assigned to it when a third party uses the contributed work outside the scope of the Apache license.
Vic Cekvenich wrote:
Jim Barnett wrote:
Also, having owners assign copyrights to ASF would probably be a
mistake. First, ASF really doesn't have the resources or (I would
guess) the interest in enforcing copyrights assigned to it when a
third party uses the contributed work outside the scope
Jim Barnett wrote:
Also, having owners assign copyrights to ASF would probably be a
mistake. First, ASF really doesn't have the resources or (I would
guess) the interest in enforcing copyrights assigned to it when a
third party uses the contributed work outside the scope of the Apache
16 matches
Mail list logo
