You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@corinthia.apache.org by Peter Kelly <pm...@apache.org> on 2015/02/13 04:28:34 UTC
Copyright notices
I’ve finally gotten around to updating the copyright notices in all the source files to reflect the requirements described at http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html. The copyright statement for UX Productivity now lives in NOTICES.txt; anyone else who has make contributions so far should add their name to this file.
I’ve left the files in platform unchanged to avoid merge conflicts with Jan’s changes; I’ll let him take care of those.
Could someone with more experience with Apache licensing than me please verify that the changes I’ve made are correct?
—
Dr Peter M. Kelly
pmkelly@apache.org
PGP key: http://www.kellypmk.net/pgp-key <http://www.kellypmk.net/pgp-key>
(fingerprint 5435 6718 59F0 DD1F BFA0 5E46 2523 BAA1 44AE 2966)
Re: Copyright notices
Posted by jan i <ja...@apache.org>.
On 13 February 2015 at 04:28, Peter Kelly <pm...@apache.org> wrote:
> I’ve finally gotten around to updating the copyright notices in all the
> source files to reflect the requirements described at
> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html. The copyright statement for
> UX Productivity now lives in NOTICES.txt; anyone else who has make
> contributions so far should add their name to this file.
>
"so far" is not correct. Any that made contributions before the code
entered incubator can if they want to add their name.
> I’ve left the files in platform unchanged to avoid merge conflicts with
> Jan’s changes; I’ll let him take care of those.
>
will do
>
> Could someone with more experience with Apache licensing than me please
> verify that the changes I’ve made are correct?
>
will do
rgds
jan i
>
> —
> Dr Peter M. Kelly
> pmkelly@apache.org
>
> PGP key: http://www.kellypmk.net/pgp-key <http://www.kellypmk.net/pgp-key>
> (fingerprint 5435 6718 59F0 DD1F BFA0 5E46 2523 BAA1 44AE 2966)
>
>
RE: Copyright notices
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
There should never be new direct contributions that have Copyright notices or other conditions other than the headers ASF require.
That's because anyone with commit (i.e., push) rights must be an ASF committer and have filed an iCLA with the ASF. For ASF Projects, the request is to not add copyright notices of any kind for these contributions, and there is no need for anything in NOTICE about them. So it is not necessary to include a copyright notice, because the license notification is sufficient.
So the only reason for more material in NOTICE is with regard to (1) incorporation of source code that is not contributed in that manner, (2) that is otherwise compatible with being in source code of an Apache Project, and (3) creates a legal requirement to identify the license of the code.
The example of showdown.js is useful in this regard. It is third-party. The copyright notices cannot be moved and the files should be used intact. There is need to identify that origin and the copyright claims in the NOTICE file so that folks are aware of the dependency's presence and the license that is involved. The license text needs to be appended to the LICENSE file.
If there are modifications to showdown.js, that makes a derivative work and generally it is kept under the original license. If the modifications are not minor and necessary for integration into Corinthia, it is desirable to contribute anything useful upstream. There might be something added to the showdown.js notice heading on the files concerning the presence of Apache contributed mods. It would be useful to check to see how minimal that can be in this particular situation wherever it arises in Corinthia.
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Kelly [mailto:kellypmk@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 01:25
To: dev@corinthia.incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Copyright notices
> On 13 Feb 2015, at 3:32 pm, Dennis E. Hamilton <de...@acm.org> wrote:
[ ... ]
> We will need to run RAT on the repository as part of diligence with regard to third-party license notices and claims, and that should be done before declaring every release candidate. I think this can be done on an unzip of the source archive for a given release, since there is more time to clean up IP on unreleased code/dependencies.
One other dependency which I think should also be mentioned that I don’t think has been discussed the list or JIRA yet is showdown.js inside the Editor (inside the Editor/src/3rdparty directory). This is a Markdown implementation written in Javascript; there’s a license.txt in there which is the same as the original markdown program by John Gruber, which I think is BSD-style.
[ ... ]
> ABOUT NOTICE
>
> It has been made very clear that NOTICE is not an attribution or acknowledgment file. It must be limited to *legally-required* notice information. Moving your copyright notice there is perfect under the third-party rules. Any associated licenses that are required to be included are appended to LICENSE, and multiple uses of common licenses only needs to appear in LICENSE once.
[ ... ]
Any new code that is added by myself or others still needs to be identifiable as being under the copyright ownership of the companies/individuals who wrote it (in case of any disputes) - something which in non-Apache projects can often be done by looking at the names at the top of the source files, though with the Apache approach relies on version control. But I don’t see that as a problem given how easy it is to track the history of code through VC systems.
> MY COPYRIGHT AND NOTICE
>
> I believe all of my contributions of any substance came after the move to the incubator, although I was made a member of the UX project before that. In any case, I have not applied any copyright notices to files from me (except ASF notices) and I am in complete accord with the code being licensed to the ASF. There is no requirement to do anything in NOTICE on my behalf. Having a CONTRIBUTORS file would be valuable though.
If you write new code though, you still own the copyright on it, correct? An example would be the scripts you wrote for externals required by the windows build - you own these but have granted a license for their use to Apache, is that right?
--
Dr. Peter M. Kelly
kellypmk@gmail.com
http://www.kellypmk.net/
PGP key: http://www.kellypmk.net/pgp-key <http://www.kellypmk.net/pgp-key>
(fingerprint 5435 6718 59F0 DD1F BFA0 5E46 2523 BAA1 44AE 2966)
Re: Copyright notices
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
On 13/02/2015 Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> From: jan i [mailto:jani@apache.org]
> The copyright is Apache (see the ICLA) but you have
> the full right to use it. The ICLA transfers ownership to Apache, this is
> so that ASF can protect you in case of problems, if you owned the code ASF
> could not protect you, and ASF could not license it to others (the essence
> of ALv2).
> <orcmid>
> ... In particular, the copyright holder does not license the
> transfer of copyright to recipients of the license in the case of iCLA
> and also the ALv2. If ASF was a copyright owner of the contributed
> work, it could indeed make transfers to others. ...
> It is important that the idea of copyright transfer and of copyright
> licensing be kept very separate. ...
> </orcmid>
I confirm what Dennis wrote. There is a difference between a copyright
assignment and copyright licensing. What I do when submitting the ICLA
is: telling the ASF that it can use my contributed code under ALv2
forever; promising the ASF that I will only contribute code that I am
entitled to contribute. The copyright on the code remains mine.
In case of problems with released code, responsibility falls on the PMC
that was acting as an official body of the ASF (this is why a collective
vote is needed); in case of problems with unreleased code, I suspect
that the responsibility is still of the individual committer.
Regards,
Andrea.
RE: Copyright notices
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
-- replying below to --
From: jan i [mailto:jani@apache.org]
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 01:42
To: dev@corinthia.incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Copyright notices
On 13 February 2015 at 10:25, Peter Kelly <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
< [ ... ]
> If you write new code though, you still own the copyright on it, correct?
> An example would be the scripts you wrote for externals required by the
> windows build - you own these but have granted a license for their use to
> Apache, is that right?
>
That is nearly correct. The copyright is Apache (see the ICLA) but you have
the full right to use it. The ICLA transfers ownership to Apache, this is
so that ASF can protect you in case of problems, if you owned the code ASF
could not protect you, and ASF could not license it to others (the essence
of ALv2).
<orcmid>
The ownership of the copyright in the contribution is that of the
contributor. You can never acquire copyright of something that is not
your original creation (and does not infringe on what are called the
exclusive rights of the copyright holder
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/106>). There is no transfer
of copyright in the iCLA (or CCLA or standard SGA). There is only
licensing. In particular, the copyright holder does not license the
transfer of copyright to recipients of the license in the case of iCLA
and also the ALv2. If ASF was a copyright owner of the contributed
work, it could indeed make transfers to others. Not only does the ASF
have no desire to do that, the licenses from contributors do not give
the ASF any power to do so regardless.
It is important that the idea of copyright transfer and of copyright
licensing be kept very separate. This comes up on various lists from
time to time. Yet if you read the ALv2 or the iCLA, there is absolutely
no mention of copyright transfer.
EXAMPLES
I believe the FAQ on the ALv2 and third-party software cover this, but
examples applicable to Corinthia might be helpful. This is not legal
advice. I have no ability to offer such advice and none is intended.
The copyright notice that makes claims about Apache Software Foundation
copyright is only about the combination into an Apache Release, not over
the original contribution, which always remains under the copyright of
the contributors (or the original copyright holders that grant the
contributors the right to offer such a license).
As an example, if I were to prepare a derivative of a work that is the
copyright of another, the copyright in the retained content remains with
the original licensor. Whatever is new copyrightable subject matter
in the derivative work is under that producer's copyright, and it is
not an infringement when a license permits derivatives and I have been
careful to satisfy other conditions of the license. In the ongoing
dispute between Google and Oracle over the Java APIs, Google does not
have such a license and claims an exception in its appeal to being found
liable for infringement of Oracle's copyright in a court of law. It
remains to be seen whether Google's legal theory holds water in its
appeal at the US Supreme Court.
</orcmid>
rgds
jan i.
>
> --
> Dr. Peter M. Kelly
> kellypmk@gmail.com
> http://www.kellypmk.net/
>
> PGP key: http://www.kellypmk.net/pgp-key <http://www.kellypmk.net/pgp-key>
> (fingerprint 5435 6718 59F0 DD1F BFA0 5E46 2523 BAA1 44AE 2966)
>
>
RE: Copyright notices
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
Your response is much crisper than mine. Thanks.
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Kelly [mailto:pmkelly@apache.org]
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 02:49
To: dev@corinthia.incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Copyright notices
> The ICLA transfers ownership to Apache
This is contrary to my understanding. In section 2 ("Grant of Copyright License”) of the ICLA it specifically says that the signer agrees to *license* the code to Apache; I understood this as not indicating transfer of *ownership*. If ownership transfer was taking place, it seems the license grant would be unnecessary?
I also came across the following comment by Bertrand Delacretaz on a mailing list archive:
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.legal.discuss/97
"No - as per http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt ("2. Grant of Copyright License") which is what committers sign, they only grant a copyright license to the ASF, but all committers keep copyright ownership of their contributions."
—
Dr Peter M. Kelly
pmkelly@apache.org
PGP key: http://www.kellypmk.net/pgp-key <http://www.kellypmk.net/pgp-key>
(fingerprint 5435 6718 59F0 DD1F BFA0 5E46 2523 BAA1 44AE 2966)
RE: Copyright notices
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
Copyright is different than rights in a material object. My sending you a copy of my code, or letting you clone a codebase of mine, does not constitute transfer of copyright. None. Never. Even if I could take the code back (which is difficult to do since it is not physical property in the legal sense and the ASF did not steal it), it would not cancel the license. (There is provision for rescinding a license, but it never applies to code already contributed. It is not retroactive.)
The fact that code was transferred simply established what the SGA applied to. There is also no deed of a material object in the SGA, CCLA, and iCLA.
Peter gets to keep his copy and do whatever he wants with it. He did not transfer ownership of the code.
Arguments based on handling of material objects just don't work here. There's a clause about that in the US Copyright Code, <http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap2.html>. See section 202 which covers these cases. And section 201(c) is relevant to what the ASF asserts with a copyright notice.
One of the responsibilities of a [P]PMC is assurance that these IP niceties are dealt with properly within the parameters for their fulfilment established by the ASF.
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: jan i [mailto:jani@apache.org]
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 03:14
To: dev@corinthia.incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Copyright notices
On 13 February 2015 at 11:49, Peter Kelly <pm...@apache.org> wrote:
> > The ICLA transfers ownership to Apache
>
> This is contrary to my understanding. In section 2 ("Grant of Copyright
> License”) of the ICLA it specifically says that the signer agrees to
> *license* the code to Apache; I understood this as not indicating transfer
> of *ownership*. If ownership transfer was taking place, it seems the
> license grant would be unnecessary?
>
The world starts a bit different, you donated the code to ASF, you did not
just give ASF a right to use.
[ ... ]
Re: Copyright notices
Posted by jan i <ja...@apache.org>.
On 13 February 2015 at 11:49, Peter Kelly <pm...@apache.org> wrote:
> > The ICLA transfers ownership to Apache
>
> This is contrary to my understanding. In section 2 ("Grant of Copyright
> License”) of the ICLA it specifically says that the signer agrees to
> *license* the code to Apache; I understood this as not indicating transfer
> of *ownership*. If ownership transfer was taking place, it seems the
> license grant would be unnecessary?
>
The world starts a bit different, you donated the code to ASF, you did not
just give ASF a right to use.
>
> I also came across the following comment by Bertrand Delacretaz on a
> mailing list archive:
>
> http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.legal.discuss/97
>
> "No - as per http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt ("2. Grant of
> Copyright License") which is what committers sign, they only grant a
> copyright license to the ASF, but all committers keep copyright ownership
> of their contributions."
>
Remark the work "copyright", that is not the same as ownership of the code.
You do have in reality shared copyright with apache (meaning both have
equal rights in terms of copyright), but you donated the code to asf
(meaning you cannot take your code and walk away, which would be possible
if you owned the code).
But the whole theme is pretty complex, as you can see from the mail
archives, let me give you some of the highlights I have picked up:
- Apache wants to own the code, so there are no discussion about ownership
in case of legal problems. Just think about if 1 developer in a project
removes ASF right to use the code.
- Apache acknowledges the author by giving him full copyright. ASF
Copyright is only against 3parties to ensure the code is not misused
- ALv2 allows third party (downstream) to do pretty much what they want to
do with the code, as long as the acknowledge ASF and thereby the author.
rgds
jan i.
>
> —
> Dr Peter M. Kelly
> pmkelly@apache.org
>
> PGP key: http://www.kellypmk.net/pgp-key <http://www.kellypmk.net/pgp-key>
> (fingerprint 5435 6718 59F0 DD1F BFA0 5E46 2523 BAA1 44AE 2966)
>
>
Re: Copyright notices
Posted by Peter Kelly <pm...@apache.org>.
> The ICLA transfers ownership to Apache
This is contrary to my understanding. In section 2 ("Grant of Copyright License”) of the ICLA it specifically says that the signer agrees to *license* the code to Apache; I understood this as not indicating transfer of *ownership*. If ownership transfer was taking place, it seems the license grant would be unnecessary?
I also came across the following comment by Bertrand Delacretaz on a mailing list archive:
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.legal.discuss/97
"No - as per http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt ("2. Grant of Copyright License") which is what committers sign, they only grant a copyright license to the ASF, but all committers keep copyright ownership of their contributions."
—
Dr Peter M. Kelly
pmkelly@apache.org
PGP key: http://www.kellypmk.net/pgp-key <http://www.kellypmk.net/pgp-key>
(fingerprint 5435 6718 59F0 DD1F BFA0 5E46 2523 BAA1 44AE 2966)
Re: Copyright notices
Posted by jan i <ja...@apache.org>.
On 13 February 2015 at 10:25, Peter Kelly <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 13 Feb 2015, at 3:32 pm, Dennis E. Hamilton <de...@acm.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > Oops, let this sit in my draft folder for hours. I blame the wonders of
> oxycodone and pain management.
> >
> > The TL;DR: You're doing great on the notices.
> >
> > Some nuances and clarification of NOTICE below.
> >
> > - Dennis
> >
> > Peter,
> >
> > Thanks for asking about this.
> >
> > I think the new notices on files are just fine (and COR-41 is totally
> elective but valuable as a casual undertaking). The README.md probably
> needs an ASF notice too.
> >
> > Some ASF purists expect that NOTICE and LICENSE will appear without a
> .txt extension. I don't expect any/much push-back about that on a release,
> and if there were, it is probably something that could be fixed on a
> following release.
>
> My gut instinct would be to go without the extension. I noticed there was
> already a LICENSE.txt there (which may have actually been my addition way
> back when) hence I used that. But the instructions did say NOTICE (not
> NOTICE.txt), so i propose we use the former.
>
> > After a few years watching the lists about the proper use of these
> files, I think you are fine except for what might be needed for external
> dependencies, etc. That can be dealt with as platform and
> external-dependencies (including for incorporated source code) are handled.
> >
> > It would be useful to obtain an appraisal from the mentors on this. I'm
> confident that we have enough information to avoid marching over to
> discuss-legal and general-incubator to hammer anything out.
> >
> > We will need to run RAT on the repository as part of diligence with
> regard to third-party license notices and claims, and that should be done
> before declaring every release candidate. I think this can be done on an
> unzip of the source archive for a given release, since there is more time
> to clean up IP on unreleased code/dependencies.
>
> One other dependency which I think should also be mentioned that I don’t
> think has been discussed the list or JIRA yet is showdown.js inside the
> Editor (inside the Editor/src/3rdparty directory). This is a Markdown
> implementation written in Javascript; there’s a license.txt in there which
> is the same as the original markdown program by John Gruber, which I think
> is BSD-style.
>
clearly something we should mention.
>
> This library is used when the paste command is executed in the editor and
> the clipboard contains only plain text. It converts the text into HTML,
> assuming Markdown syntax, and then goes through the normal paste codepath
> which works with HTML input.
>
> I’m not sure if we necessarily need this dependency in Corinthia. UX Write
> uses it but it’s not a fundamental requirement; it could instead be moved
> out into the application level (that is, UX Write itself and any other
> applications build on top of the Editor library). When we have Markdown
> support in DocFormats itself, an application that uses Corinthia could use
> DocFormats to do the conversion to HTML on paste.
>
We need to think a bit more about how to have the editor working, I am
thinking that it might be split in a couple of atoms (editing functions,
load/save functions, UI).
>
> > ABOUT NOTICE
> >
> > It has been made very clear that NOTICE is not an attribution or
> acknowledgment file. It must be limited to *legally-required* notice
> information. Moving your copyright notice there is perfect under the
> third-party rules. Any associated licenses that are required to be
> included are appended to LICENSE, and multiple uses of common licenses only
> needs to appear in LICENSE once.
> >
> > (Aside: My inclination would be to include the git commit hash for the
> code as it was before you made the contribution cited in NOTICE, but I
> don't think that is a requirement. Anyone willing to do some forensic work
> in the git can find that point on their own, a nice feature of Git having
> all history in each clone.)
>
> Yeah the question popped into my head “how does who owns copyright over
> which part of the code?” and I realised Git history is the answer. Even
> with the initial commit hash in place, this serves only for UX
> Productivity’s contribution, and then only the contribution that was made
> at the point of initial commit. Any new code that is added by myself or
> others still needs to be identifiable as being under the copyright
> ownership of the companies/individuals who wrote it (in case of any
> disputes) - something which in non-Apache projects can often be done by
> looking at the names at the top of the source files, though with the Apache
> approach relies on version control. But I don’t see that as a problem given
> how easy it is to track the history of code through VC systems
Please do not make this more complex than it already is. One line in the
NOTICE file is what ASF needs, do not start to split it into who did what
before the code entered incubator.
Any code added after the code entered incubator is pr definition from the
start of the repo, so ASF has everything it needs.
> .
>
> > MY COPYRIGHT AND NOTICE
> >
> > I believe all of my contributions of any substance came after the move
> to the incubator, although I was made a member of the UX project before
> that. In any case, I have not applied any copyright notices to files from
> me (except ASF notices) and I am in complete accord with the code being
> licensed to the ASF. There is no requirement to do anything in NOTICE on
> my behalf. Having a CONTRIBUTORS file would be valuable though.
>
> If you write new code though, you still own the copyright on it, correct?
> An example would be the scripts you wrote for externals required by the
> windows build - you own these but have granted a license for their use to
> Apache, is that right?
>
That is nearly correct. The copyright is Apache (see the ICLA) but you have
the full right to use it. The ICLA transfers ownership to Apache, this is
so that ASF can protect you in case of problems, if you owned the code ASF
could not protect you, and ASF could not license it to others (the essence
of ALv2).
rgds
jan i.
>
> --
> Dr. Peter M. Kelly
> kellypmk@gmail.com
> http://www.kellypmk.net/
>
> PGP key: http://www.kellypmk.net/pgp-key <http://www.kellypmk.net/pgp-key>
> (fingerprint 5435 6718 59F0 DD1F BFA0 5E46 2523 BAA1 44AE 2966)
>
>
Re: Copyright notices
Posted by Peter Kelly <ke...@gmail.com>.
> On 13 Feb 2015, at 3:32 pm, Dennis E. Hamilton <de...@acm.org> wrote:
>
> Oops, let this sit in my draft folder for hours. I blame the wonders of oxycodone and pain management.
>
> The TL;DR: You're doing great on the notices.
>
> Some nuances and clarification of NOTICE below.
>
> - Dennis
>
> Peter,
>
> Thanks for asking about this.
>
> I think the new notices on files are just fine (and COR-41 is totally elective but valuable as a casual undertaking). The README.md probably needs an ASF notice too.
>
> Some ASF purists expect that NOTICE and LICENSE will appear without a .txt extension. I don't expect any/much push-back about that on a release, and if there were, it is probably something that could be fixed on a following release.
My gut instinct would be to go without the extension. I noticed there was already a LICENSE.txt there (which may have actually been my addition way back when) hence I used that. But the instructions did say NOTICE (not NOTICE.txt), so i propose we use the former.
> After a few years watching the lists about the proper use of these files, I think you are fine except for what might be needed for external dependencies, etc. That can be dealt with as platform and external-dependencies (including for incorporated source code) are handled.
>
> It would be useful to obtain an appraisal from the mentors on this. I'm confident that we have enough information to avoid marching over to discuss-legal and general-incubator to hammer anything out.
>
> We will need to run RAT on the repository as part of diligence with regard to third-party license notices and claims, and that should be done before declaring every release candidate. I think this can be done on an unzip of the source archive for a given release, since there is more time to clean up IP on unreleased code/dependencies.
One other dependency which I think should also be mentioned that I don’t think has been discussed the list or JIRA yet is showdown.js inside the Editor (inside the Editor/src/3rdparty directory). This is a Markdown implementation written in Javascript; there’s a license.txt in there which is the same as the original markdown program by John Gruber, which I think is BSD-style.
This library is used when the paste command is executed in the editor and the clipboard contains only plain text. It converts the text into HTML, assuming Markdown syntax, and then goes through the normal paste codepath which works with HTML input.
I’m not sure if we necessarily need this dependency in Corinthia. UX Write uses it but it’s not a fundamental requirement; it could instead be moved out into the application level (that is, UX Write itself and any other applications build on top of the Editor library). When we have Markdown support in DocFormats itself, an application that uses Corinthia could use DocFormats to do the conversion to HTML on paste.
> ABOUT NOTICE
>
> It has been made very clear that NOTICE is not an attribution or acknowledgment file. It must be limited to *legally-required* notice information. Moving your copyright notice there is perfect under the third-party rules. Any associated licenses that are required to be included are appended to LICENSE, and multiple uses of common licenses only needs to appear in LICENSE once.
>
> (Aside: My inclination would be to include the git commit hash for the code as it was before you made the contribution cited in NOTICE, but I don't think that is a requirement. Anyone willing to do some forensic work in the git can find that point on their own, a nice feature of Git having all history in each clone.)
Yeah the question popped into my head “how does who owns copyright over which part of the code?” and I realised Git history is the answer. Even with the initial commit hash in place, this serves only for UX Productivity’s contribution, and then only the contribution that was made at the point of initial commit. Any new code that is added by myself or others still needs to be identifiable as being under the copyright ownership of the companies/individuals who wrote it (in case of any disputes) - something which in non-Apache projects can often be done by looking at the names at the top of the source files, though with the Apache approach relies on version control. But I don’t see that as a problem given how easy it is to track the history of code through VC systems.
> MY COPYRIGHT AND NOTICE
>
> I believe all of my contributions of any substance came after the move to the incubator, although I was made a member of the UX project before that. In any case, I have not applied any copyright notices to files from me (except ASF notices) and I am in complete accord with the code being licensed to the ASF. There is no requirement to do anything in NOTICE on my behalf. Having a CONTRIBUTORS file would be valuable though.
If you write new code though, you still own the copyright on it, correct? An example would be the scripts you wrote for externals required by the windows build - you own these but have granted a license for their use to Apache, is that right?
--
Dr. Peter M. Kelly
kellypmk@gmail.com
http://www.kellypmk.net/
PGP key: http://www.kellypmk.net/pgp-key <http://www.kellypmk.net/pgp-key>
(fingerprint 5435 6718 59F0 DD1F BFA0 5E46 2523 BAA1 44AE 2966)
RE: Copyright notices
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
Oops, let this sit in my draft folder for hours. I blame the wonders of oxycodone and pain management.
The TL;DR: You're doing great on the notices.
Some nuances and clarification of NOTICE below.
- Dennis
Peter,
Thanks for asking about this.
I think the new notices on files are just fine (and COR-41 is totally elective but valuable as a casual undertaking). The README.md probably needs an ASF notice too.
Some ASF purists expect that NOTICE and LICENSE will appear without a .txt extension. I don't expect any/much push-back about that on a release, and if there were, it is probably something that could be fixed on a following release.
After a few years watching the lists about the proper use of these files, I think you are fine except for what might be needed for external dependencies, etc. That can be dealt with as platform and external-dependencies (including for incorporated source code) are handled.
It would be useful to obtain an appraisal from the mentors on this. I'm confident that we have enough information to avoid marching over to discuss-legal and general-incubator to hammer anything out.
We will need to run RAT on the repository as part of diligence with regard to third-party license notices and claims, and that should be done before declaring every release candidate. I think this can be done on an unzip of the source archive for a given release, since there is more time to clean up IP on unreleased code/dependencies.
ABOUT NOTICE
It has been made very clear that NOTICE is not an attribution or acknowledgment file. It must be limited to *legally-required* notice information. Moving your copyright notice there is perfect under the third-party rules. Any associated licenses that are required to be included are appended to LICENSE, and multiple uses of common licenses only needs to appear in LICENSE once.
(Aside: My inclination would be to include the git commit hash for the code as it was before you made the contribution cited in NOTICE, but I don't think that is a requirement. Anyone willing to do some forensic work in the git can find that point on their own, a nice feature of Git having all history in each clone.)
MY COPYRIGHT AND NOTICE
I believe all of my contributions of any substance came after the move to the incubator, although I was made a member of the UX project before that. In any case, I have not applied any copyright notices to files from me (except ASF notices) and I am in complete accord with the code being licensed to the ASF. There is no requirement to do anything in NOTICE on my behalf. Having a CONTRIBUTORS file would be valuable though.
It may be of interest to you that I have made a license declaration that goes beyond the iCLA. I believe that declaration is on file with the ASF Secretary. The purpose of my declaration is to establish that I provide the same license as the iCLA makes to *anyone* who obtains a contribution of mine from an ASF Project, even if the contribution is never (or not yet) reflected in a release. I did this to put no strings on my AOO contributions being used by LibreOffice and anyone else, regardless of ever being merged into an AOO release. (I have made the identical declaration for any of my contributions to LibreOffice, providing all rights that an iCLA grants, with no limitation, not even mention, concerning MPL or any other license choice.)
Here is one public notification of the grant that I made concerning ASF contributions,
<http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/openoffice-dev/201303.mbox/%3c008801ce1c21$0deb3560$29c1a020$@apache.org%3e>
In the transmittal text (not part of the grant), the first appearance of "LibreOffice" (4th paragraph at the top of the list message body) should read "an ASF Project".
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Kelly [mailto:pmkelly@apache.org]
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 19:29
To: dev@corinthia.incubator.apache.org
Subject: Copyright notices
I’ve finally gotten around to updating the copyright notices in all the source files to reflect the requirements described at http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html. The copyright statement for UX Productivity now lives in NOTICES.txt; anyone else who has make contributions so far should add their name to this file.
I’ve left the files in platform unchanged to avoid merge conflicts with Jan’s changes; I’ll let him take care of those.
Could someone with more experience with Apache licensing than me please verify that the changes I’ve made are correct?
—
Dr Peter M. Kelly
pmkelly@apache.org
PGP key: http://www.kellypmk.net/pgp-key <http://www.kellypmk.net/pgp-key>
(fingerprint 5435 6718 59F0 DD1F BFA0 5E46 2523 BAA1 44AE 2966)