You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by Todd Volkert <tv...@gmail.com> on 2009/09/04 12:40:16 UTC
Copyright notices in NOTICE file
Hi all,
Apache Pivot (incubating) contains the following snippet in project's the
NOTICE file:
Portions of this software were developed at VMware, Inc.
(http://www.vmware.com/). Copyright (c) 2009 VMware, Inc.
This is because the code was originally developed at VMware and then
contributed to the ASF and made open source, under the AL 2.0 license. Per
the policy outlined at http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html, I
believe the notice above to be correct, but during a recent release vote (
http://www.mail-archive.com/general@incubator.apache.org/msg22403.html), the
point got raised that the snippet above fails to mention any associated
license with respect to VMware.
What's the ASF legal policy with respect to this matter? Is the copyright
notice above correct?
Much appreciated,
-T
Re: Copyright notices in NOTICE file
Posted by Todd Volkert <tv...@gmail.com>.
>
>
> That works, but since Greg Brown and I (both Pivot committers) still work
> at VMware, I think any code we write on Pivot is still covered by VMware
> copyright protection, no? If that's the case, then the notice applies to
> all files we've touched.
>
Actually, that doesn't make sense. If that were the case, then all
committers would need copyright notices from their employer in the NOTICE
file, which clearly isn't the case. I'll change it to the text you
suggested earlier in the thread.
Thanks for the help!
-T
Re: Copyright notices in NOTICE file
Posted by Todd Volkert <tv...@gmail.com>.
> On an unrelated note, you should drop the Tomcat section - it is covered
> by the statement "This product includes software developed at The Apache
> Software Foundation".
>
Ok - I added mention of Tomcat in the LICENSE file so the file's origin
isn't forgotten over time.
>
> As far as the VMWare copyright statement goes I see no need to mention a
> license although it seems more troubling that it doesn't say which files
> are copyright VMWare.
>
> Maybe something along the lines of:
>
> The original software was developed at VMware, Inc.
> (http://www.vmware.com/) and donated to the Apache
> Software Foundation. Copyright (c) 2009 VMware, Inc.
>
> to make clear that VMWare copyright is for the original code?
>
That works, but since Greg Brown and I (both Pivot committers) still work at
VMware, I think any code we write on Pivot is still covered by VMware
copyright protection, no? If that's the case, then the notice applies to
all files we've touched.
Re: Copyright notices in NOTICE file
Posted by Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>.
Todd Volkert wrote:
> FYI, the full notice file can be found at
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/pivot/trunk/NOTICE
On an unrelated note, you should drop the Tomcat section - it is covered
by the statement "This product includes software developed at The Apache
Software Foundation".
I did see the comment about wanting to clarify which Servlet
implementation is being used but the NOTICE file is for notices that are
legally required and should be kept the bare minimum. There is no legal
requirement to mention Tomcat <hat type="tomcat-committer">sham</hat>
As far as the VMWare copyright statement goes I see no need to mention a
license although it seems more troubling that it doesn't say which files
are copyright VMWare.
Maybe something along the lines of:
The original software was developed at VMware, Inc.
(http://www.vmware.com/) and donated to the Apache
Software Foundation. Copyright (c) 2009 VMware, Inc.
to make clear that VMWare copyright is for the original code?
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Copyright notices in NOTICE file
Posted by Todd Volkert <tv...@gmail.com>.
FYI, the full notice file can be found at
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/pivot/trunk/NOTICE
Cheers,
-T
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 6:40 AM, Todd Volkert <tv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Apache Pivot (incubating) contains the following snippet in project's the
> NOTICE file:
>
> Portions of this software were developed at VMware, Inc.
> (http://www.vmware.com/). Copyright (c) 2009 VMware, Inc.
>
> This is because the code was originally developed at VMware and then
> contributed to the ASF and made open source, under the AL 2.0 license. Per
> the policy outlined at http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html, I
> believe the notice above to be correct, but during a recent release vote (
> http://www.mail-archive.com/general@incubator.apache.org/msg22403.html),
> the point got raised that the snippet above fails to mention any associated
> license with respect to VMware.
>
> What's the ASF legal policy with respect to this matter? Is the copyright
> notice above correct?
>
> Much appreciated,
> -T
>
Re: Copyright notices in NOTICE file
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <rd...@apache.org>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
Todd Volkert wrote:
> Thanks Robert and Jukka for the very thorough answers with respect to
>> unneeded attribution in the NOTICE file. By that logic, I should remove the
>> Tango Icon Theme (which is Public Domain) clause as well, yes?
>>
>>
> Or is this relevant somehow in terms of what should be included in the
> NOTICE and LICENSE files? http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/
there's consensus that no notice is necessary in NOTICE. if - in LICENSE
- - you say everything else is under the AL2 except for [list] then it's
best to note in the list each public domain work
- - robert
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org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=1J8o
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Copyright notices in NOTICE file
Posted by Todd Volkert <tv...@gmail.com>.
Thanks Robert and Jukka for the very thorough answers with respect to
> unneeded attribution in the NOTICE file. By that logic, I should remove the
> Tango Icon Theme (which is Public Domain) clause as well, yes?
>
>
Or is this relevant somehow in terms of what should be included in the
NOTICE and LICENSE files? http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/
Re: Copyright notices in NOTICE file
Posted by Todd Volkert <tv...@gmail.com>.
Thanks Robert and Jukka for the very thorough answers with respect to
unneeded attribution in the NOTICE file. By that logic, I should remove the
Tango Icon Theme (which is Public Domain) clause as well, yes?
-T
Re: Copyright notices in NOTICE file
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <rd...@apache.org>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
Todd Volkert wrote:
<snip.
>> * Some of the entries (BSD licensed ones) probably don't need to be
>> mentioned in the NOTICE file. See LEGAL-59 and LEGAL-62 for
>> background.
>>
>
> It doesn't feel right not giving attribution. The LICENSE file shows what
> they're licensed under, but the NOTICE file seems like the right place to
> give attribution, with a URL.
the BSD is both a license and an attribution notice. giving just the URL
is not enough to satisfy the license. the complete text needs to be
included in the LICENSE.
creators of derivative works are required to retain the NOTICE.
unnecessary attributions makes things more difficult for this class of
downstream users.
for example, the statement
"This software contains FooBar, developed by Mr Foo Bar
http://www.example.org/foobar"
contained in the NOTICE that a downstream derivative work is required to
preserve may be factually incorrect if that work does not ship that
particular dependency or decides to use a replacement.
- - robert
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org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=kEoz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Copyright notices in NOTICE file
Posted by Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 5:09 PM, Todd Volkert<tv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Note also that the groovy-all jar that you include in Pivot contains
>> code under multiple different licenses, not just the ALv2. All these
>> licenses should be included or at least referenced in the Pivot
>> LICENSE file.
>
> Eh - I think we're just going to remove the Groovy demo, because it's a very
> small demo that doesn't add anything over what's shown in our other demos
> (we already have a scripting in JavaScript example, which doesn't suffer
> from these issues because the JavaScript engine comes with Java 6).
A simple alternative is to simply ask the user to download the Groovy
jars. In fact, if it's a Groovy demo, then you could well assume that
the user already has Groovy installed on her system.
Note that from a licensing policy point of view there's nothing wrong
with Groovy, the only catch is that if you include the Groovy jars in
a release then you'll need to keep track of and document all the
relevant licenses.
BR,
Jukka Zitting
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Copyright notices in NOTICE file
Posted by Todd Volkert <tv...@gmail.com>.
>
> Where did you get the Groovy jars? The Groovy downloads from
> groovy.codehaus.org come with NOTICE files with attributions to the
> Groovy community.
>
> Note also that the groovy-all jar that you include in Pivot contains
> code under multiple different licenses, not just the ALv2. All these
> licenses should be included or at least referenced in the Pivot
> LICENSE file.
>
Eh - I think we're just going to remove the Groovy demo, because it's a very
small demo that doesn't add anything over what's shown in our other demos
(we already have a scripting in JavaScript example, which doesn't suffer
from these issues because the JavaScript engine comes with Java 6).
Re: Copyright notices in NOTICE file
Posted by Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Todd Volkert<tv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> * Some of the entries (BSD licensed ones) probably don't need to be
>> mentioned in the NOTICE file. See LEGAL-59 and LEGAL-62 for
>> background.
>
> It doesn't feel right not giving attribution. The LICENSE file shows what
> they're licensed under, but the NOTICE file seems like the right place to
> give attribution, with a URL.
Fair enough, but note that by adding the attribution to the NOTICE
file (instead of somewhere else within Pivot) you are making it a
mandatory part of downstream redistributions. This is not what the
original author requested, so it would be Pivot adding this extra
obligation to downstream users.
>> * For ALv2 dependencies like Tomcat, Groovy, etc., instead of stating
>> the dependency and the license it's under, you'll need to look inside
>> the NOTICE file of those dependencies and copy the relevant parts into
>> the Pivot NOTICE.
>
> Ok, I did that, and groovy and smack seem to contain no such notices, and
> Tomcat's notices are not relevant to the Pivot code that is compiled against
> the servlet jar. Thus, I think we're safe in just removing those sections
> from the NOTICE file.
Where did you get the Groovy jars? The Groovy downloads from
groovy.codehaus.org come with NOTICE files with attributions to the
Groovy community.
Note also that the groovy-all jar that you include in Pivot contains
code under multiple different licenses, not just the ALv2. All these
licenses should be included or at least referenced in the Pivot
LICENSE file.
BR,
Jukka Zitting
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Copyright notices in NOTICE file
Posted by Todd Volkert <tv...@gmail.com>.
>
> * I'd avoid mentioning the license terms in the NOTICE file. Simply
> state the attribution where required, for example:
>
> This software contains images distributed as part of the
> Silk Icon Set, developed by Mark James.
> http://www.famfamfam.com/lab/icons/silk/
>
Done
>
> * Some of the entries (BSD licensed ones) probably don't need to be
> mentioned in the NOTICE file. See LEGAL-59 and LEGAL-62 for
> background.
>
It doesn't feel right not giving attribution. The LICENSE file shows what
they're licensed under, but the NOTICE file seems like the right place to
give attribution, with a URL.
> * For ALv2 dependencies like Tomcat, Groovy, etc., instead of stating
> the dependency and the license it's under, you'll need to look inside
> the NOTICE file of those dependencies and copy the relevant parts into
> the Pivot NOTICE.
>
Ok, I did that, and groovy and smack seem to contain no such notices, and
Tomcat's notices are not relevant to the Pivot code that is compiled against
the servlet jar. Thus, I think we're safe in just removing those sections
from the NOTICE file.
> * I agree with Sebb's point about the divider lines, but it's your
> call if you prefer to keep them. ALv2 just requires a "readable copy
> of the attribution notices" in the NOTICE file, so the extra
> formatting isn't too troublesome.
>
Eh - I just removed them; I didn't feel too strongly about them.
See the updated NOTICE and LICENSE files for the recent changes.
-T
Re: Copyright notices in NOTICE file
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 04/09/2009, Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 2:12 PM, Todd Volkert<tv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Just to clarify, in your judgement, are Pivot's NOTICE and LICENSE files
> > correct as they stand now?
>
>
> Hard to say for sure without looking deeper into Pivot and it's
> dependencies. Some general notes though:
>
> * I'd avoid mentioning the license terms in the NOTICE file. Simply
> state the attribution where required, for example:
>
> This software contains images distributed as part of the
> Silk Icon Set, developed by Mark James.
> http://www.famfamfam.com/lab/icons/silk/
>
> * Some of the entries (BSD licensed ones) probably don't need to be
> mentioned in the NOTICE file. See LEGAL-59 and LEGAL-62 for
> background.
>
> * For ALv2 dependencies like Tomcat, Groovy, etc., instead of stating
> the dependency and the license it's under, you'll need to look inside
> the NOTICE file of those dependencies and copy the relevant parts into
> the Pivot NOTICE.
>
> * I agree with Sebb's point about the divider lines, but it's your
> call if you prefer to keep them. ALv2 just requires a "readable copy
> of the attribution notices" in the NOTICE file, so the extra
> formatting isn't too troublesome.
AIUI the NOTICE file is supposed to be the equivalent of an About box,
so should be as short as possible (but no shorter!).
>
> BR,
>
> Jukka Zitting
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Copyright notices in NOTICE file
Posted by Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 2:12 PM, Todd Volkert<tv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just to clarify, in your judgement, are Pivot's NOTICE and LICENSE files
> correct as they stand now?
Hard to say for sure without looking deeper into Pivot and it's
dependencies. Some general notes though:
* I'd avoid mentioning the license terms in the NOTICE file. Simply
state the attribution where required, for example:
This software contains images distributed as part of the
Silk Icon Set, developed by Mark James.
http://www.famfamfam.com/lab/icons/silk/
* Some of the entries (BSD licensed ones) probably don't need to be
mentioned in the NOTICE file. See LEGAL-59 and LEGAL-62 for
background.
* For ALv2 dependencies like Tomcat, Groovy, etc., instead of stating
the dependency and the license it's under, you'll need to look inside
the NOTICE file of those dependencies and copy the relevant parts into
the Pivot NOTICE.
* I agree with Sebb's point about the divider lines, but it's your
call if you prefer to keep them. ALv2 just requires a "readable copy
of the attribution notices" in the NOTICE file, so the extra
formatting isn't too troublesome.
BR,
Jukka Zitting
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Copyright notices in NOTICE file
Posted by Todd Volkert <tv...@gmail.com>.
>
> The NOTICE file is supposed to be as short as possible, so the ===
> dividers need to go.
>
Done
Re: Copyright notices in NOTICE file
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 04/09/2009, Todd Volkert <tv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jukka,
>
> Just to clarify, in your judgement, are Pivot's NOTICE and LICENSE files
> correct as they stand now?
>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/pivot/trunk/NOTICE
The NOTICE file is supposed to be as short as possible, so the ===
dividers need to go.
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/pivot/trunk/LICENSE
>
> Thanks,
> -T
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 7:59 AM, Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 12:40 PM, Todd Volkert<tv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Apache Pivot (incubating) contains the following snippet in project's
> the
> > > NOTICE file:
> > >
> > > Portions of this software were developed at VMware, Inc.
> > > (http://www.vmware.com/). Copyright (c) 2009 VMware, Inc.
> > >
> > > This is because the code was originally developed at VMware and then
> > > contributed to the ASF and made open source, under the AL 2.0 license.
> Per
> > > the policy outlined at
> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html, I
> > > believe the notice above to be correct, but during a recent release vote
> > >
> (http://www.mail-archive.com/general@incubator.apache.org/msg22403.html),
> > > the point got raised that the snippet above fails to mention any
> associated
> > > license with respect to VMware.
> > >
> > > What's the ASF legal policy with respect to this matter?
> >
> > All license information should go to the LICENSE file.
> >
> > Mentioning the license terms in NOTICE is troublesome since ALv2
> > allows redistribution under different terms but requires that the
> > notices in NOTICE be included in derivative works.
> >
> > BR,
> >
> > Jukka Zitting
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Copyright notices in NOTICE file
Posted by Todd Volkert <tv...@gmail.com>.
Jukka,
Just to clarify, in your judgement, are Pivot's NOTICE and LICENSE files
correct as they stand now?
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/pivot/trunk/NOTICE
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/pivot/trunk/LICENSE
Thanks,
-T
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 7:59 AM, Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 12:40 PM, Todd Volkert<tv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Apache Pivot (incubating) contains the following snippet in project's the
> > NOTICE file:
> >
> > Portions of this software were developed at VMware, Inc.
> > (http://www.vmware.com/). Copyright (c) 2009 VMware, Inc.
> >
> > This is because the code was originally developed at VMware and then
> > contributed to the ASF and made open source, under the AL 2.0 license.
> Per
> > the policy outlined at http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html, I
> > believe the notice above to be correct, but during a recent release vote
> > (http://www.mail-archive.com/general@incubator.apache.org/msg22403.html
> ),
> > the point got raised that the snippet above fails to mention any
> associated
> > license with respect to VMware.
> >
> > What's the ASF legal policy with respect to this matter?
>
> All license information should go to the LICENSE file.
>
> Mentioning the license terms in NOTICE is troublesome since ALv2
> allows redistribution under different terms but requires that the
> notices in NOTICE be included in derivative works.
>
> BR,
>
> Jukka Zitting
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
Re: Copyright notices in NOTICE file
Posted by Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 12:40 PM, Todd Volkert<tv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Apache Pivot (incubating) contains the following snippet in project's the
> NOTICE file:
>
> Portions of this software were developed at VMware, Inc.
> (http://www.vmware.com/). Copyright (c) 2009 VMware, Inc.
>
> This is because the code was originally developed at VMware and then
> contributed to the ASF and made open source, under the AL 2.0 license. Per
> the policy outlined at http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html, I
> believe the notice above to be correct, but during a recent release vote
> (http://www.mail-archive.com/general@incubator.apache.org/msg22403.html),
> the point got raised that the snippet above fails to mention any associated
> license with respect to VMware.
>
> What's the ASF legal policy with respect to this matter?
All license information should go to the LICENSE file.
Mentioning the license terms in NOTICE is troublesome since ALv2
allows redistribution under different terms but requires that the
notices in NOTICE be included in derivative works.
BR,
Jukka Zitting
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org