You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM> on 2008/03/20 23:00:08 UTC
Apache License 2.0
I recently had the opportunity to discuss "The License" with someone
who had a very different understanding of this part of the license:
You must retain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works that You
distribute, all copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices
from the Source form of the Work, excluding those notices that do not
pertain to any part of the Derivative Works; and
He said that in his opinion, as long as The License appeared somewhere
in the Derivative Work Source distribution, it satisfied the license
terms. He said that a NOTICE file somewhere in the source distribution
was sufficient.
I said that to me, the terms mean that the source files themselves,
not the NOTICE file elsewhere, needed to retain the license. It was ok
to add other licensing information to each file, but the original
license notice needed to be retained.
Do we need to rephrase the license terms, to specifically require that
the license text needs to be retained *in each file* of the Source
form of the work? Or is the alternative interpretation just fine?
Craig
Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Re: Apache License 2.0
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
On Mar 20, 2008, at 3:00 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
> I recently had the opportunity to discuss "The License" with
> someone who had a very different understanding of this part of the
> license:
>
> You must retain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works that
> You distribute, all copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution
> notices from the Source form of the Work, excluding those notices
> that do not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works; and
>
> He said that in his opinion, as long as The License appeared
> somewhere in the Derivative Work Source distribution, it satisfied
> the license terms. He said that a NOTICE file somewhere in the
> source distribution was sufficient.
He's wrong.
> I said that to me, the terms mean that the source files themselves,
> not the NOTICE file elsewhere, needed to retain the license. It was
> ok to add other licensing information to each file, but the
> original license notice needed to be retained.
>
> Do we need to rephrase the license terms, to specifically require
> that the license text needs to be retained *in each file* of the
> Source form of the work?
No. The license text is not usually in each file -- just a notice
and reference to it.
As much as I have compassion for folks who think that just because
*they* misinterpret a certain phrase in a particular way it must be so,
the fact is that dozens of licenses have the exact (or very close to it)
clause and it means the same for all of them: don't remove anything
that signifies ownership, attribution, or licensing. It is phrased that
way in our license to be compatible with the GPL. The notices are
placed in each file because source files are often viewed and reused
in parts.
....Roy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Apache License 2.0
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
Hi Sam,
Yes, I do want to help resolve this issue. I'll contact you privately
with contact information.
Craig
On Mar 30, 2008, at 7:16 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 1:51 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>
> wrote:
>>
>> Since then, my last several emails have not so much as
>> even received a response.
>
> The internet is a weird and wonderful place:
>
> <<< 554 Connection from 67.19.173.84 refused by listing in RBL server
> - Originating system is a SPAM site. Please go to
> https://ussc.syntegra.com/cgi-bin/rbl.cgi for more information.
> ... while talking to btmx4.sun.com.:
>
> Craig, if you are interested in / willing to help resolve the issue
> with the removal of the ASF headers from the Jasper files in the
> Glassfish codebase, please send me an email, and I will share with you
> who I have been working with at Sun. Alternately, they are welcome to
> participate here. Or we can jointly ask the SFLC for guidance on this
> matter -- I'm entirely OK with that.
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
> only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
> constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
> and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
> official ASF policies and documents.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Re: Apache License 2.0
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 1:51 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>
> Since then, my last several emails have not so much as
> even received a response.
The internet is a weird and wonderful place:
<<< 554 Connection from 67.19.173.84 refused by listing in RBL server
- Originating system is a SPAM site. Please go to
https://ussc.syntegra.com/cgi-bin/rbl.cgi for more information.
... while talking to btmx4.sun.com.:
Craig, if you are interested in / willing to help resolve the issue
with the removal of the ASF headers from the Jasper files in the
Glassfish codebase, please send me an email, and I will share with you
who I have been working with at Sun. Alternately, they are welcome to
participate here. Or we can jointly ask the SFLC for guidance on this
matter -- I'm entirely OK with that.
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Apache License 2.0
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
Hi Sam,
On Mar 31, 2008, at 9:33 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Craig L Russell <Craig.Russell@sun.com
> > wrote:
>> I contacted Eben Moglen of the SFLC and his response is that the
>> document [1] covers the case of an Apache License, Version 2.0
>> license
>> being incorporated into a GPL work.
>>
>> Just have to read it a few times.
>>
>> SInce there's nothing new here, I don't see that advising FSF about
>> the existence of a 6 month old public document is necessary.
>
> Cool. And since you offered to resolve the Glassfish issue with Sun,
> I assume that you will be taking this advice back to Sun and will
> either see that it is followed through or you will report back here as
> to why Sun disagrees with the ASF and SFLC, should it happen to come
> to that?
Yes. I'm on the case now.
Craig
>
>
>> Craig
>>
>> [1] http://lwn.net/Articles/248223/
>>
>> On Mar 30, 2008, at 4:05 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 2008-03-29 at 13:51 -0400, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> 3) I would be glad to ask the SFLC to get involved. But be aware
>>>> that
>>>> the request would be to have them draft language which indicates
>>>> exactly how one incorporates Works licensed under Apache License,
>>>> Version 2.0 into a code base that is licensed subject to the
>>>> terms of
>>>> either the GNU General Public License Version 2 only ("GPL") or the
>>>> Common Development and Distribution License("CDDL").
>>>
>>> involving the SFLC would be a good move
>>>
>>> i do not think that we need to presuppose that they will judge that
>>> AL2.0'd code can be reasonably incorporated into a GPL2.0'd
>>> codebase. we
>>> should therefore ask them to draft guidance on the subject covering
>>> when
>>> and whether it is possible, and (if or when possible) the right
>>> way to
>>> do it.
>>>
>>> AIUI the FSF is of the opinion that AL2.0 cannot be incorporated
>>> into a
>>> work licensed under the GPL. it would be courteous to inform them
>>> were
>>> we to take this to the SFLC.
>>>
>>> - robert
>>
>> Craig Russell
>> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/
>> jdo
>> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
>> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Re: Apache License 2.0
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Craig L Russell <Cr...@sun.com> wrote:
> I contacted Eben Moglen of the SFLC and his response is that the
> document [1] covers the case of an Apache License, Version 2.0 license
> being incorporated into a GPL work.
>
> Just have to read it a few times.
>
> SInce there's nothing new here, I don't see that advising FSF about
> the existence of a 6 month old public document is necessary.
Cool. And since you offered to resolve the Glassfish issue with Sun,
I assume that you will be taking this advice back to Sun and will
either see that it is followed through or you will report back here as
to why Sun disagrees with the ASF and SFLC, should it happen to come
to that?
> Craig
>
> [1] http://lwn.net/Articles/248223/
>
> On Mar 30, 2008, at 4:05 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 2008-03-29 at 13:51 -0400, Sam Ruby wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> 3) I would be glad to ask the SFLC to get involved. But be aware
> >> that
> >> the request would be to have them draft language which indicates
> >> exactly how one incorporates Works licensed under Apache License,
> >> Version 2.0 into a code base that is licensed subject to the terms of
> >> either the GNU General Public License Version 2 only ("GPL") or the
> >> Common Development and Distribution License("CDDL").
> >
> > involving the SFLC would be a good move
> >
> > i do not think that we need to presuppose that they will judge that
> > AL2.0'd code can be reasonably incorporated into a GPL2.0'd
> > codebase. we
> > should therefore ask them to draft guidance on the subject covering
> > when
> > and whether it is possible, and (if or when possible) the right way to
> > do it.
> >
> > AIUI the FSF is of the opinion that AL2.0 cannot be incorporated
> > into a
> > work licensed under the GPL. it would be courteous to inform them were
> > we to take this to the SFLC.
> >
> > - robert
>
> Craig Russell
> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Apache License 2.0
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@blueyonder.co.uk>.
On Mon, 2008-03-31 at 09:07 -0700, Craig L Russell wrote:
> I contacted Eben Moglen of the SFLC and his response is that the
> document [1] covers the case of an Apache License, Version 2.0 license
> being incorporated into a GPL work.
>
> Just have to read it a few times.
>
> SInce there's nothing new here, I don't see that advising FSF about
> the existence of a 6 month old public document is necessary.
+1
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Apache License 2.0
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
I contacted Eben Moglen of the SFLC and his response is that the
document [1] covers the case of an Apache License, Version 2.0 license
being incorporated into a GPL work.
Just have to read it a few times.
SInce there's nothing new here, I don't see that advising FSF about
the existence of a 6 month old public document is necessary.
Craig
[1] http://lwn.net/Articles/248223/
On Mar 30, 2008, at 4:05 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
> On Sat, 2008-03-29 at 13:51 -0400, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> 3) I would be glad to ask the SFLC to get involved. But be aware
>> that
>> the request would be to have them draft language which indicates
>> exactly how one incorporates Works licensed under Apache License,
>> Version 2.0 into a code base that is licensed subject to the terms of
>> either the GNU General Public License Version 2 only ("GPL") or the
>> Common Development and Distribution License("CDDL").
>
> involving the SFLC would be a good move
>
> i do not think that we need to presuppose that they will judge that
> AL2.0'd code can be reasonably incorporated into a GPL2.0'd
> codebase. we
> should therefore ask them to draft guidance on the subject covering
> when
> and whether it is possible, and (if or when possible) the right way to
> do it.
>
> AIUI the FSF is of the opinion that AL2.0 cannot be incorporated
> into a
> work licensed under the GPL. it would be courteous to inform them were
> we to take this to the SFLC.
>
> - robert
Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Re: Apache License 2.0
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <rd...@apache.org>.
On Sat, 2008-03-29 at 13:51 -0400, Sam Ruby wrote:
<snip>
> 3) I would be glad to ask the SFLC to get involved. But be aware that
> the request would be to have them draft language which indicates
> exactly how one incorporates Works licensed under Apache License,
> Version 2.0 into a code base that is licensed subject to the terms of
> either the GNU General Public License Version 2 only ("GPL") or the
> Common Development and Distribution License("CDDL").
involving the SFLC would be a good move
i do not think that we need to presuppose that they will judge that
AL2.0'd code can be reasonably incorporated into a GPL2.0'd codebase. we
should therefore ask them to draft guidance on the subject covering when
and whether it is possible, and (if or when possible) the right way to
do it.
AIUI the FSF is of the opinion that AL2.0 cannot be incorporated into a
work licensed under the GPL. it would be courteous to inform them were
we to take this to the SFLC.
- robert
Re: Apache License 2.0
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 11:57 PM, Roy T. Fielding <fi...@gbiv.com> wrote:
> On Mar 28, 2008, at 6:23 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
>
> > Would it be possible to ask our SFLC buddies to write a piece that
> > specifically applies to the current version of the Apache license?
>
> No. Craig, what is the point of this interrogation? The license is
> clear, our intent is clear, and if Sun wants to act like complete
> idiots in regard to how it interacts with this community then it
> doesn't matter what the license says -- they'll do so anyway. So Sun
> can either obey the license as intended, at no cost to itself, or it
> can bloody well hope that one of the copyright owners outside Sun
> doesn't get pissed off and sue them for infringement on every copy
> ever downloaded from Glassfish. We certainly aren't going to help Sun
> avoid the most reasonably expected condition that everyone agreed to
> while participating in our projects and that every other company
> (aside from old JBoss) manages to obey on their redistributions.
1) I don't know that Craig is asking on behalf of Glassfish. Craig
does happen to work at Sun, but that does not imply a connection to
me.
2) Glassfish did summarily remove all ASF headers from all Jasper
code[1][2] in the Glassfish SVN over two years ago, which I consider a
violation of the license. Sun (not Craig, other people at Sun) have
been asked numerous times to restore the headers. I have been
reporting on the lack of progress on this issue to the board for the
last several months, and such minutes are now public. One of the
responses I got was that our license conditions do not apply. Suffice
it to say that I was neither convinced nor pleased by such a
statement. Since then, my last several emails have not so much as
even received a response. Craig, if this is something you can help
with, I would appreciate it. In fact, I will copy you on my next
note.
3) I would be glad to ask the SFLC to get involved. But be aware that
the request would be to have them draft language which indicates
exactly how one incorporates Works licensed under Apache License,
Version 2.0 into a code base that is licensed subject to the terms of
either the GNU General Public License Version 2 only ("GPL") or the
Common Development and Distribution License("CDDL").
- Sam Ruby
[1] https://glassfish.dev.java.net/source/browse/glassfish/appserv-webtier/src/java/org/apache/jasper/JasperException.java?rev=1.3&r1=1.1&r2=1.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Apache License 2.0
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
On Mar 28, 2008, at 8:57 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>> 1. Take a close look at the proposed separator between the new
>> license and the Apache license:
>>
>> * This file incorporates work covered by the following copyright and
>> * permission notice: *
>>
>> Note that the Apache header we've been using since 2004 does not
>> include a copyright notice. It seems somewhat disconcerting to
>> advertise "the following copyright" when there is no copyright.
>
> There is a copyright; it just isn't noticed by owner in every file.
> The rest of the header is a notice of license terms beyond the default
> of exclusive copyright.
Sorry, I misspoke. Of course there is a copyright, in a completely
different place. What I'm confused about (and every person who reads
the separator will have the same confusion) is that when you say
"following copyright" you expect to see a copyright that follows the
separator.
The words "following copyright" don't belong here.
Craig
>
>
> The concern can be easily (and factually) addressed by prefixing the
> existing header with "Portions of this file are ...". The purpose of
> the header is to indicate where the work came from and the terms under
> which those original parts may be redistributed, primarily to avoid
> the situation where some downstream redistributor (e.g., JBoss)
> accuses
> us of infringement just because they've violated our license and
> forgotten its origin.
Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Re: Apache License 2.0
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
On Mar 28, 2008, at 6:23 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
> I'm afraid the referenced link is not applicable to this situation.
>
> 1. Take a close look at the proposed separator between the new
> license and the Apache license:
>
> * This file incorporates work covered by the following copyright and
> * permission notice: *
>
> Note that the Apache header we've been using since 2004 does not
> include a copyright notice. It seems somewhat disconcerting to
> advertise "the following copyright" when there is no copyright.
There is a copyright; it just isn't noticed by owner in every file.
The rest of the header is a notice of license terms beyond the default
of exclusive copyright.
The concern can be easily (and factually) addressed by prefixing the
existing header with "Portions of this file are ...". The purpose of
the header is to indicate where the work came from and the terms under
which those original parts may be redistributed, primarily to avoid
the situation where some downstream redistributor (e.g., JBoss) accuses
us of infringement just because they've violated our license and
forgotten its origin.
> 2. The term "covered" is ambiguous, as it is both a past tense and
> a past participle that can be used as an adjective. The language
> doesn't make it clear whether this file is currently covered
> [adjective] by the license (which would be wrong) or was in the
> past covered [verb] by the notice (which is correct).
Wrong. The work remains covered by the license so long as the copyright
owner says it is covered, even if additional licenses are provided by
others. No, there is nothing ambiguous about that -- if it isn't
covered,
then you don't have any license to redistribute.
> Would it be possible to ask our SFLC buddies to write a piece that
> specifically applies to the current version of the Apache license?
No. Craig, what is the point of this interrogation? The license is
clear, our intent is clear, and if Sun wants to act like complete
idiots in regard to how it interacts with this community then it
doesn't matter what the license says -- they'll do so anyway. So Sun
can either obey the license as intended, at no cost to itself, or it
can bloody well hope that one of the copyright owners outside Sun
doesn't get pissed off and sue them for infringement on every copy
ever downloaded from Glassfish. We certainly aren't going to help Sun
avoid the most reasonably expected condition that everyone agreed to
while participating in our projects and that every other company
(aside from old JBoss) manages to obey on their redistributions.
The reason we don't have the copyright ownership notice in every file
is because we track ownership in the contribution history. It may very
well be that Sun is the only entity that contributed to the files in
question, in which case they are still under Sun's copyright and they
can remove the headers. However, since most of the Tomcat files have,
at one time or another, gone through phases where major contributors
were working for IBM and then later joined Sun, and also "refactors"
where folks pulled everything out of CVS, moved it around, and then
submitted Tomcat 4 in a huge commit, it is rather difficult for anyone
to be sure other than the original contributors. In any case, the
collection as a whole is copyright the ASF, as is the org.apache
namespace regardless of prefix.
The bottom line is that, if the header is removed, then our license
is violated and exclusive copyright reverts to the copyright owner.
That means, if Sun is not the copyright owner, then it has no
permission to redistribute the work once that header is removed.
....Roy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Apache License 2.0
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
Hi Sam,
I'm afraid the referenced link is not applicable to this situation.
1. Take a close look at the proposed separator between the new license
and the Apache license:
* This file incorporates work covered by the following copyright and
* permission notice: *
Note that the Apache header we've been using since 2004 does not
include a copyright notice. It seems somewhat disconcerting to
advertise "the following copyright" when there is no copyright.
2. The term "covered" is ambiguous, as it is both a past tense and a
past participle that can be used as an adjective. The language doesn't
make it clear whether this file is currently covered [adjective] by
the license (which would be wrong) or was in the past covered [verb]
by the notice (which is correct).
Would it be possible to ask our SFLC buddies to write a piece that
specifically applies to the current version of the Apache license?
Craig
On Mar 20, 2008, at 3:52 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 6:00 PM, Craig L Russell <Craig.Russell@sun.com
> > wrote:
>> I recently had the opportunity to discuss "The License" with someone
>> who had a very different understanding of this part of the license:
>
> Please direct them to the following:
>
> http://lwn.net/Articles/248223/
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
> only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
> constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
> and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
> official ASF policies and documents.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Re: Apache License 2.0
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 6:00 PM, Craig L Russell <Cr...@sun.com> wrote:
> I recently had the opportunity to discuss "The License" with someone
> who had a very different understanding of this part of the license:
Please direct them to the following:
http://lwn.net/Articles/248223/
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Apache License 2.0
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 3:00 PM, Craig L Russell <Cr...@sun.com> wrote:
> I recently had the opportunity to discuss "The License" with someone
> who had a very different understanding of this part of the license:
>
> You must retain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works that You
> distribute, all copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices
> from the Source form of the Work, excluding those notices that do not
> pertain to any part of the Derivative Works; and
>
> He said that in his opinion, as long as The License appeared somewhere
> in the Derivative Work Source distribution, it satisfied the license
> terms. He said that a NOTICE file somewhere in the source distribution
> was sufficient.
>
> I said that to me, the terms mean that the source files themselves,
> not the NOTICE file elsewhere, needed to retain the license. It was ok
> to add other licensing information to each file, but the original
> license notice needed to be retained.
>
> Do we need to rephrase the license terms, to specifically require that
> the license text needs to be retained *in each file* of the Source
> form of the work? Or is the alternative interpretation just fine?
Sounds like the issue is whether 'retain' means keeping in the same
place you found them, or in any old place.
I'll leave it to Sam to say for sure, but I'm pretty sure we mean
keeping in the same place you found them.
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org