You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by Rahul Akolkar <ra...@gmail.com> on 2005/07/29 22:28:48 UTC
Copyright line in code contributions
I recently came across a code contribution which contains the
Copyright [yyyy] [name of copyright owner]
line in every new file as pointed out in the Appendix at the bottom of
[ http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt ]. I wanted to check
what the norm is within Apache for accepting code contributions for
existing projects with such copyright lines, and more importantly if
the existence of attribution via such copyright lines should be the
sole reason for denying a contribution.
Some comments from existing Apache Jakarta committers can be found in
the original thread on this topic posted on general AT
jakarta.apache.org here [
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=jakarta-general&m=112226811008503&w=2
]
Thanks for your time.
-Rahul
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Copyright line in code contributions
Posted by Simon Kitching <sk...@apache.org>.
On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 13:31 +0800, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> On Tuesday 02 August 2005 13:08, Ralph Goers wrote:
> > Although what your reply says is what we do in practice, it is contrary
> > to what Larry Rosen had to say on this mailing list in March. I have
> > Larry's email below (including the headers) in case you missed it.
>
> Did we ever get any clarification from the Board on this??
>
> IIRC, it all ran out into the sand...
That clarification would be nice. Larry's opinion is no doubt excellent
legally, but may not take into account the social/psychological aspect.
Neither does it consider, as far as I can see, the concept of the
original author choosing to grant the ASF copyright over a piece created
work. I'm pretty sure that authors can sell their copyright rights, so
presumably they can give them away to the ASF (or share them); that has
certainly been my intent with all code I have written for ASF projects.
Regards,
Simon
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Copyright line in code contributions
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
On Tuesday 02 August 2005 13:08, Ralph Goers wrote:
> Although what your reply says is what we do in practice, it is contrary
> to what Larry Rosen had to say on this mailing list in March. I have
> Larry's email below (including the headers) in case you missed it.
Did we ever get any clarification from the Board on this??
IIRC, it all ran out into the sand...
Cheers
Niclas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Copyright line in code contributions
Posted by Danny Angus <da...@gmail.com>.
On 04/08/05, Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com> wrote:
> The balancing argument is that we don't want to have projects contribute one
> line of code (or above the minimal threshold for copyrightable work) and have
> their name added to the files as a copyright owner. This just devolves into
> the '@author' tag debacle that we don't want to see happen.
I understand that. So the only thing we can legally do is refuse to
accept such contributions.
In which case the answer to the original question is that the presence
of a copyright statement isn't a legal issue but may be a reasonable
reason to reject a contribution, for the same reason that @author tags
are frowned upon in Java comments.
d.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Copyright line in code contributions
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
--On August 4, 2005 9:14:46 AM +0100 Danny Angus <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I thought that I understood that the intention of the ASF is not to
> have an assignment of the full copyright, which would terminate the
> rights of the author, but merely to have a perpetual and irrevocable
> licence which would allow the ASF to "do what we do" with the code
> whatever _that_ is (but thats another story).
Correct.
> Is it possible to clarify this point, does the ASF require (or assume)
> a full transfer of the author's rights or is it clear that the ASF
> only requires an irrevocable (non-exclusive) licence of the relevant
> rights from the owner be they a commiter, other contributor or an
> employer?
We only want a irrecvocable license from the copyright/patent holder -
whomever that may be.
> If you take the EU case I understand that I own (irrevocably) the
> rights in my code. My employer through my contract of employment owns
> an exclusive licence to my code (even my "non-work" code) their CCLA
> grants the ASF a licence from my employer to the ASF under the licence
> my employer has. Is this amateur understanding substantially correct?
Yes. The reason why we also want an individual CLA is to cover the cases
where you work 'from home' and your employer wouldn't own the rights.
> If so it means that the ASF does indeed have no right to remove (C)
> statements from contributions, unless that is provided for under the
> CLA/CCLA/Grant licence.
> And that such statements should not affect the ASF's rights under the
> licence.
The balancing argument is that we don't want to have projects contribute one
line of code (or above the minimal threshold for copyrightable work) and have
their name added to the files as a copyright owner. This just devolves into
the '@author' tag debacle that we don't want to see happen.
> What is worse is that if you pursue this line of reasoning it raises
> the question of whether any contribution without a CLA/CCLA is
> permissible because the rights to that code are not transferred or
> licenced at all.
>
> Where am I going wrong?
The ALv2 contains a copyright/patent grant for 'contributions' already. The
CLA and CCLA are just add'l paperwork to make us feel good. =) -- justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Copyright line in code contributions
Posted by Danny Angus <da...@gmail.com>.
Forgive me if this question has already been asked but reading the following:...
On 02/08/05, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> > I actually think that Larry means that this is not happening, as you are not
> > employed and that there is no Copyright assign from you to ASF, which
> > (copyright assigns) in case of many european countries are possibly not even
> > contractually possible.
>
> Correct. In the state of California, as well as under the CCLA of my
> employer granted to the ASF, this is. Some individuals may be subject
> to different circumstances, as you point out.
>
... it is not clear that we have a clear understanding of what the
grant is actually of, or what grant we actually need.
I thought that I understood that the intention of the ASF is not to
have an assignment of the full copyright, which would terminate the
rights of the author, but merely to have a perpetual and irrevocable
licence which would allow the ASF to "do what we do" with the code
whatever _that_ is (but thats another story).
Is it possible to clarify this point, does the ASF require (or assume)
a full transfer of the author's rights or is it clear that the ASF
only requires an irrevocable (non-exclusive) licence of the relevant
rights from the owner be they a commiter, other contributor or an
employer?
If you take the EU case I understand that I own (irrevocably) the
rights in my code. My employer through my contract of employment owns
an exclusive licence to my code (even my "non-work" code) their CCLA
grants the ASF a licence from my employer to the ASF under the licence
my employer has. Is this amateur understanding substantially correct?
If so it means that the ASF does indeed have no right to remove (C)
statements from contributions, unless that is provided for under the
CLA/CCLA/Grant licence.
And that such statements should not affect the ASF's rights under the licence.
What is worse is that if you pursue this line of reasoning it raises
the question of whether any contribution without a CLA/CCLA is
permissable because the rights to that code are not transferred or
licenced at all.
Where am I going wrong?
d.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Copyright line in code contributions
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> On Tuesday 02 August 2005 22:54, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
>> * I am writing code for contribution to the ASF. I do so under their
>> copyright, not my own, because the code is created under the umbrella
>> of the ASF and they are the owner/copyright holder from the code's
>> very inception
>
>
> I actually think that Larry means that this is not happening, as you are not
> employed and that there is no Copyright assign from you to ASF, which
> (copyright assigns) in case of many european countries are possibly not even
> contractually possible.
Correct. In the state of California, as well as under the CCLA of my
employer granted to the ASF, this is. Some individuals may be subject
to different circumstances, as you point out.
> Not sure, but it sounds strange that X could claim Copyright on behalf of Z,
> without any agreement between the two. Such agreement does not exist in the
> ASF CLA of today.
Actually it does. As a member the relationship is quite clear. As one
of our committers, it becomes fuzzier but the intent remains clear. As
a random contributor, I agree, there is very little to stand on.
This is why CLA's are required not only of our committers (you can no
longer have an account/commit privilage without one) but also of major
contributions.
Section 2 of the CLA addresses this. Section 4 addresses your prior
point.
Understand that without review, one's code does not become part of the
ASF until it's voted on, or a release is voted on. So that grant of
copyright licence/contribution is provisional upon adoption by the ASF.
> Lawyers can probably clarify but as I understand it, "I do so under their
> copyright" has no effect other than everyone's "feel good", which is also
> important community-wise. :o)
This goes back to attributions in the source, which is the point of many
prior lengthy debates. Spin a new thread in an appropriate forum such
as community@ if you desire to rehash it :)
Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Copyright line in code contributions
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
On Tuesday 02 August 2005 22:54, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> * I am writing code for contribution to the ASF. I do so under their
> copyright, not my own, because the code is created under the umbrella
> of the ASF and they are the owner/copyright holder from the code's
> very inception
I actually think that Larry means that this is not happening, as you are not
employed and that there is no Copyright assign from you to ASF, which
(copyright assigns) in case of many european countries are possibly not even
contractually possible.
Not sure, but it sounds strange that X could claim Copyright on behalf of Z,
without any agreement between the two. Such agreement does not exist in the
ASF CLA of today.
Lawyers can probably clarify but as I understand it, "I do so under their
copyright" has no effect other than everyone's "feel good", which is also
important community-wise. :o)
Cheers
Niclas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Copyright line in code contributions
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Ralph Goers wrote:
> Although what your reply says is what we do in practice, it is contrary
> to what Larry Rosen had to say on this mailing list in March. I have
> Larry's email below (including the headers) in case you missed it.
Ralph,
in no way did my comments contradict the messages you quoted; there
are three cases to consider;
* I am writing code for contribution to the ASF. I do so under their
copyright, not my own, because the code is created under the umbrella
of the ASF and they are the owner/copyright holder from the code's
very inception. For an example, see;
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/trunk/os/win32/ap_regkey.c
* I had previously written code that I think is useful to the ASF. In
that case, even myself, a member of the foundation, need to offer the
ASF a code grant and re-label the files *myself* to complete the
process of this grant, and acknowledge that the fork entering the
ASF is now in their jurisdiction. Note that I continue to hold the
original copyright, and that I might grant license to others in the
future. For an example;
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/mod_aspdotnet/trunk/mod/mod_aspdotnet.cpp
(and yes, I understand that "or its licensors, as applicable" is no
longer in favor, being redundant.)
* There is code, licensed appropriately, which I need to use for part
of an ASF project, and for which we have no code grant, only the
original license to cling to. For an example;
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/trunk/srclib/pcre/pcre.c
I don't know the specifics of the case presented, but I expect it falls
under one of these three scenarios.
Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Copyright line in code contributions
Posted by Ralph Goers <Ra...@dslextreme.com>.
Although what your reply says is what we do in practice, it is contrary
to what Larry Rosen had to say on this mailing list in March. I have
Larry's email below (including the headers) in case you missed it.
Ralph
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> It entirely depends.
>
> If this is a submission to the project, written for the project, it
> should be rejected out of hand. All of Apache software is a collective
> effort; as much as some would like individual recognition, this is a
> piss poor way to do it and still keep a sense of community around any
> given project.
>
<snip>
>
>
> Bill
>
Return-Path:
<le...@apache.org>
Delivered-To: ralph.goers@dslextreme.com
Received: (qmail 7750 invoked from network); 5 Mar 2005 16:24:24 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mailgate1.dslextreme.com) (192.168.7.94)
by mail4.dslextreme.com with SMTP; Sat, 05 Mar 2005 08:24:24 -0800
Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [209.237.227.199])
by mailgate1.dslextreme.com (Postfix) with SMTP id D20FB63046A
for <ra...@dslextreme.com>; Sat, 5 Mar 2005 08:22:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 616 invoked by uid 500); 5 Mar 2005 16:24:22 -0000
Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <ma...@apache.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <ma...@apache.org>
List-Post: <ma...@apache.org>
List-Id: <legal-discuss.apache.org>
Delivered-To: mailing list legal-discuss@apache.org
Received: (qmail 597 invoked by uid 99); 5 Mar 2005 16:24:21 -0000
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0
tests=
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (hermes.apache.org: local policy)
Received: from mail26d.sbc-webhosting.com (HELO
mail26d.sbc-webhosting.com) (216.173.237.167)
by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.28) with SMTP; Sat, 05 Mar 2005 08:24:20 -0800
Received: from www.rosenlaw.com (216.173.242.124)
by mail26d.sbc-webhosting.com (RS ver 1.0.95vs) with SMTP id
2-0459049852;
Sat, 5 Mar 2005 11:24:17 -0500 (EST)
Reply-To: <lr...@rosenlaw.com>
From: "Lawrence Rosen" <lr...@rosenlaw.com>
To: <sk...@apache.org>, <le...@apache.org>
Subject: RE: Copyright text, and javadoc license
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 08:24:06 -0800
Organization: Rosenlaw & Einschlag
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353
In-Reply-To: <11...@blackbox>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
Thread-Index: AcUhdcA8FiZigt8mRWW77BORh7nMwQAJb4dg
Message-ID:<20...@mail26d.sbc-webhosting.com>
> Has there been any progress on the issue of
> "Copyright [yyyy] The Apache Software Foundation or its
> licensors, as applicable"
> vs
> "Copyright (c) 2001-2004 - Apache Software Foundation"?
During the past few weeks Robyn Wagner, Jennifer Machovec, Jim Barnett and I
discussed this issue via email. I drafted for their review an email that I
proposed to send to legal-discuss to summarize the legal requirements for
copyright notices on Apache works; I now step up to the plate and copy that
summary below. Both Jennifer and Jim agree that the summary is legally
correct, but they worry that the Apache members "want" to do it differently.
I have suggested that lawyers should tell clients what the law is, but it is
up to the clients to decide whether to follow the law. So here it is (with
apologies for its length) for your review and discussion:
*************************************
There have been concerns raised recently about copyright notices on software
distributed by ASF. Here's basically what the law allows: We can place an
ASF copyright notice on any original works of authorship authored or owned
by the Apache Software Foundation, and nowhere else. Since we do not author
contributions as such - our Contributors do! - which original works of
authorship can actually bear the ASF copyright notice?
An ASF copyright notice can be placed only (1) on the ASF website itself and
on related expressive pronouncements of the ASF board of directors, its
officers or agents created on behalf of ASF and published to the world as
ASF's "voice"; (2) on the CVS data bases containing the Contributions
collected, selected and arranged in accordance with ASF-authorized
processes. The former are generally *original work* copyrights; the latter
are *collective work* copyrights. (A more general term for collective works
under US copyright law would be a *compilation work* but that's not an
important distinction for this thread and would be confusing to all
programmers.) In some cases, third parties or the ASF itself may create
modifications of (1) and (2). Only if ASF itself does the modification may
it (3) place its *derivative work* copyright notice on that work. See 17 USC
101.
In all such cases, the copyright notice for ASF's copyrightable works
published this year would be:
Copyright 2005 Apache Software Foundation.
The form of the ASF copyright notice is specified in 17 USC 401 to include
just three components: the word "Copyright", the year of first publication,
and the name of the owner of the copyright in the work.
It is never necessary to identify in the notice itself whether the claimed
copyright is for an original work, a collective work, or a derivative work.
Those details are not for the notice; instead, they are specified in an
application for registration ASF may file with the Library of Congress - and
which we must file if ASF ever intends to enforce its copyrights in federal
court. (The topic of registering ASF's copyrights is reserved for another
thread.)
The confusion on this list has been over the collective (or compilation)
work copyrights that Apache can rightfully claim in its collection of
Contributions. Merely by collecting Contributions according to established
and intelligent procedures, ASF has made a sufficient level of creative
input to claim a collective work copyright in the entire collection of ASF
code.
The law is clear, however: ASF's copyright in a collective work does not
extend to the preexisting materials placed there by its Contributors. 17 USC
103. Whoever owns the copyrights in those Contributions retains that
ownership despite their licensing it to ASF for inclusion into ASF's
collective works. Some attorneys refer to the copyright in a collective work
as "thin" because its owner can only prevent infringement of the collective
work itself, not of the individual components. Even thin copyrights can be
very valuable, however, because of the additional effects of trademark
protection (e.g., the Apache brand) and the persuasive authority of a
respected board of directors and the community of Contributors it
represents.
Every Contributor should be encouraged to place appropriate copyright
notices in the source code of its own copyrightable works at the time of its
contribution. ASF is not responsible for doing so, nor is it responsible for
the accuracy of those notices placed in source code by its Contributors. The
Apache Software License effectively disclaims the warranty of
non-infringement, so other people's copyright disputes are not our legal
concern. Furthermore, ASF's Contributor Agreements protect ASF from
liability.
Any downstream recipient of ASF's collective works takes those works subject
to all upstream licenses even if the only copyright notice appearing on the
work is that reflecting the ASF *collective work* copyright. Any downstream
recipient is on notice that the software cannot be copied except under the
terms and conditions specified in the Apache Software License. The ASF
website contains all important license notices and text. The source code
with the original copyright notices supplied by the Contributors is
available on ASF's website for all to see. No responsible commercial entity
who mattered would dare claim ignorance of Apache's license and processes.
ASF's copyright notice is all the notice needed, because our copyrightable
work is available only under the terms of our license, which explains the
rules for all.
ASF will not remove (indeed, should not remove) any pre-existing copyright
notices. This rule applies to contributed source code only. Downstream
licensees are entitled to that information so they can know their rights and
obligations, particularly if they use the source code to create derivative
works. But there is no requirement to publish the original copyright notices
when "compiling" source code into executable code or when distributing
executable versions of software. Such transformations are derivative works
owned by ASF or by the person who performed the transformations, and deserve
a new copyright notice.
Once again, the only legitimate places where ASF may place its copyright
notice are on its website, on its publications, and on its collected data
bases of contributed software. In the latter situation, ASF may claim a
collective work copyright by virtue simply of having collected it. In all
such cases, the only legitimate ASF copyright notice is:
Copyright 2005 Apache Software Foundation.
************************************
I also copy below the email exchange between Jennifer and me about the
expressed desire of Apache members to remove copyright noticed placed by
Contributors into their contributions for Apache. That correspondence is
copied below, with Jennifer's note at the bottom and my response above it:
Hi Jennifer,
Thanks for your input and for explaining the history that guided your
previous decisions.
You are absolutely right that it would be improper to place an ASF copyright
notice on files that are "contributed in their entirety and are not modified
by ASF or other contributors." What I don't then understand is why the ASF
should want to change those existing copyright notices at all. Just leave
them alone.
Regardless of the "*very* strong feeling" by ASF members that they want to
highlight the ASF identity rather than that of the contributors, modifying
or removing existing copyright notices in source code of contributions is
not the way to do that. It has the great disadvantage of obscuring the
provenance of the code, and it can lead to misunderstandings and grievances
later if contributors should want to use their own code in other ways. No
matter how adamant the members and board are, it is appropriate for lawyers
like us to say "you shouldn't be doing that."
If copyright owners like BEA and IBM acquiesce in the removal of their own
copyright notices, they may be denying themselves the full protection of the
copyright law. (See 17 USC 405(e).) And they needn't do so as long as a
*valid* Apache copyright notice is placed on the entire collective work.
(See 17 USC 404(a).)
You were concerned about the location of the Apache copyright notices on the
collective work. I'm not sure why that's become such an issue. The Apache
website is where that code is made available. What's wrong with a standard
Apache copyright notice on every such download page?
I'm certainly willing to take this issue back to ASF for reconsideration. If
I didn't feel strongly about this point I wouldn't have spent as much time
as I already did trying to explain it. My objective in reviewing the draft
with you all first was to see if perhaps we attorneys could present a common
front at least as to the interpretation of the law. Then, as we all know, if
the client still insists on doing foolish or bizarre things, it isn't our
fault.
/Larry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jennifer Machovec [mailto:jennifer626@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 7:42 AM
> To: Jim Barnett
> Cc: lrosen@rosenlaw.com; Robyn Wagner, Esq.
> Subject: Re: DRAFT: For your review
>
> I agree with much of the analysis below, and in fact when we first
> tackled this issue with ASF my suggestion was that ASF implement a
> collective work copyright notice. However, there were two primary
> problems with this approach. First, while there can be a collective
> work copyright notice associated with the project databases, that was
> not the notice location under dispute. The copyright notice and ASF
> license pointer appear in the individual main files for each component
> of a package. Many of these files are contributed in their entirety
> and are not modified by ASF or other contributors. Thus, a collective
> work notice would not be appropriate for these individual files.
> Second, there was a *very* strong feeling throughout the ASF
> membership that they wanted the Apache Software Foundation identity to
> remain a constant rather than focusing on the individual contributors.
> The members and the board were adamant that they did not want to
> encourage contributors to include their own copyright notices in the
> source; they wanted the contributors to delete any such notices and
> replace them with the ASF copyright. Hence, the "or its licensors"
> compromise was struck, and any desired third-party copyright notices
> were to be placed in a single, separate and readily accessible
> COPYRIGHT file.
>
> As Jim and I have both noted, this is admittedly not as solid as
> expressly identifying the ASF licensors in the copyright notice.
> However, I believe that the "licensors" designation coupled with the
> COPYRIGHT file is sufficient to put the users on notice and defeat an
> innocent infringement defense. I am loath to revisit this issue with
> the same arguments that were put forth earlier, because the ASF
> membership was quite clear in demonstrating their opposition to the
> inclusion by contributors of their own copyright notices, and the
> compromise took some time to formulate. If you would like to submit
> the issue again to ASF for discussion, that certainly is an option,
> and perhaps you will be more persuasive than I was.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jennifer
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Copyright line in code contributions
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
It entirely depends.
If this is a submission to the project, written for the project, it
should be rejected out of hand. All of Apache software is a collective
effort; as much as some would like individual recognition, this is a
piss poor way to do it and still keep a sense of community around any
given project.
If this is a submission of external code, created for some other
application (but useful in a new, Apache, context) then the user should
submit a code grant - http://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt
and now must since they have claimed copyright.
The rare exception is bodies of work we re-distribute or integrate, e.g.
a sha-1 implementation in httpd, or the expat library. But those are
rare, and have an explicit license less restrictive than the ASL.
In this case, someone claimed ownership over code, didn't give you a
license or a grant to actually use it. You don't want to feed that
to your dog.
Bill
Rahul Akolkar wrote:
> I recently came across a code contribution which contains the
>
> Copyright [yyyy] [name of copyright owner]
>
> line in every new file as pointed out in the Appendix at the bottom of
> [ http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt ]. I wanted to check
> what the norm is within Apache for accepting code contributions for
> existing projects with such copyright lines, and more importantly if
> the existence of attribution via such copyright lines should be the
> sole reason for denying a contribution.
>
> Some comments from existing Apache Jakarta committers can be found in
> the original thread on this topic posted on general AT
> jakarta.apache.org here [
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=jakarta-general&m=112226811008503&w=2
> ]
>
> Thanks for your time.
> -Rahul
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
> only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
> .
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org