You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@ofbiz.apache.org by Chris Howe <cj...@yahoo.com> on 2007/01/15 04:45:05 UTC
Copyright Statement
While searching for more answers on how to make the
ofbiz-sandbox ASF friendly (both legally and ASF
administrative safe guard wise), I came across a
distinction between contributions to the Free Software
Foundation (FSF) and contributions to the ASF that I
think may have been inadequately addressed in OFBiz.
IANAL.
Contributions to FSF require a copyright assignment,
while contributions to ASF generally, simply grant
license of use, modification, etc. This distinction
allows FSF software to carry the copyright notice
"Copyright YYYY The Free Software Foundation" by
itself.
I looked at a couple of the other ASF TLPs and noticed
they were either missing a copyright notice in
individual files or in the case of Geronimo, had the
following:
* Copyright 2004, 2005 The Apache Software Foundation
or its licensors, as applicable.
I only looked at a couple files, so this is no where
near a comprehensive search. As it is now, nearly
every file in OFBiz says:
Copyright 2001-2006 The Apache Software Foundation
Which perhaps in and of itself is a copyright
violation. One for the beginning year (it may be
materially false as I wouldn't think a copyright can
be assigned retroactively) and two for the exclusion
of those who may actually have the copyright (the
author, etc). To my knowledge, there was no request
to the community for copyright assignment.
I hope no one construes this as causing a fuss or as a
distraction. One of the reasons for the move to the
ASF for the project, as I understood it, was a
proactive step to avoid legal hassles. I just want us
to take advantage of that benefit and protect all of
our hard work.
TIA for your feedback,
Chris
Re: Copyright Statement
Posted by Daniel Kunkel <Da...@BioWaves.com>.
The easy answer... Whatever people want to share.
The longer answer:
- New apps
- very specialized apps
- examples
- works in progress
Whatever people are working on that they want to share.
I think the biggest thing that will happen is that many of the
developers on the fringe will finally have a home to 1.) share their pet
projects that might not be completely working yet... and 2.) find cool
ideas for features that you didn't realize you could use and even though
their not completely working (see point 1) help get them into working
order.
Daniel
On Mon, 2007-01-15 at 21:56 -0700, David E. Jones wrote:
> What kind of stuff do you imagine going into such a sandbox?
>
> -David
>
>
> On Jan 15, 2007, at 9:42 PM, Daniel Kunkel wrote:
>
> > David
> >
> > I'd like to give one more try at seeing if we can set something up
> > WITH-
> > IN the Apache OFBiz Project for sandboxed developments and developers.
> >
> > Chris seems to be really working to create something that he, I and
> > probably others feel is really needed. These legal challenges he is
> > facing in trying to create something that will help and can easily be
> > accpeted into the Apache OFBiz project seem needless.
> >
> > Couldn't we add a sandbox directory somewhere in the project where
> > non-
> > trunk approved contributors could collaborate on secondary projects. I
> > believe I'm correct in thinking that svn access to a single directory
> > would be relatively easy to administer, and the developments in that
> > structure would automatically pass all Apache legal requirements.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Daniel
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 2007-01-15 at 20:47 -0700, David E. Jones wrote:
> >> Chris,
> >>
> >> Hopefully the resource J. Aaron linked to answers your question about
> >> copyrights. Note that in that same area of the site there are various
> >> pages with helpful related information.
> >>
> >> The comments from Leo Simmons on the incubator mailing list were
> >> helpful too.
> >>
> >> As I understand it however the intellectual property is created it is
> >> the responsibility of the PMC to review the intellectual property
> >> issues and incorporate the code into the open source project. That's
> >> the only way it gets in. This may sound a little bit heavy handed,
> >> but that is how the organization is setup.
> >>
> >> As Leo mentioned there may be scenarios that are not well met by this
> >> structure, and yes without working directly with a committer on an
> >> effort collaboration through the SVN repo of the project is more
> >> difficult, but I still highly recommend it. There are major
> >> advantages to working on things through the resources of the project
> >> rather than doing things on your own and then trying to work it into
> >> the project.
> >>
> >> I have updated the Contributors Best Practices page on docs.ofbiz.org
> >> about this, and I highly recommend reading it, for anyone and
> >> everyone who is working with OFBiz. I made a few changes to make
> >> certain things more clear, but most of the issues discussed in this
> >> and other threads recently were actually already addressed on that
> >> page. Here is a link to it:
> >>
> >> http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/r
> >>
> >> -David
> >>
> >>
> >> On Jan 14, 2007, at 10:24 PM, Chris Howe wrote:
> >>
> >>> David,
> >>>
> >>> Let me know at which point I become a pain in my
> >>> inquiry about this. It's really not my intention. I'm
> >>> still looking for a model that I can use to offer
> >>> contributions with the least amount of administrative
> >>> work necessary from the sandbox to the ASF. Copying
> >>> the manner that OFBiz is able to place the copyright
> >>> ASF placard on every file without notice of other
> >>> copyright holders in that file would seem the path of
> >>> least resistance. I'm trying to find the legal theory
> >>> being used as my understanding is that there is only a
> >>> license grant being offered from contributors and not
> >>> copyright assignment with the Apache License v2.
> >>>
> >>> If I'm able to make a valid claim to copyright and
> >>> exclude other holders, then I'm able to appropriately
> >>> grant license to the ASF.
> >>>
> >>> If the ASF doesn't hold copyright in it's entirety,
> >>> then I would think this would need to be clarified
> >>> somewhere inside the project(ie LICENSE or NOTICE
> >>> files). Even failing that need, the only thing I'm
> >>> finding on apache.org is the intent to gain copyright
> >>> ownership approved in past board minutes but never an
> >>> actual vehicle to attain copyright ownership.
> >>> ie used the google search
> >>> site:www.apache.org copyright assignment
> >>>
> >>> Can you point me to a definitive place for this
> >>> answer?
> >>>
> >>> TIA,
> >>> Chris
> >>>
> >>> --- "David E. Jones" <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Chris,
> >>>>
> >>>> Do you mean the NOTICE and LICENSE files in OFBiz?
> >>>> You'll only find
> >>>> information on libraries included and their
> >>>> corresponding licenses in
> >>>> those files.
> >>>>
> >>>> I recommend looking on the apache.org site for
> >>>> general information
> >>>> about the ASF and its policies.
> >>>>
> >>>> -David
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Jan 14, 2007, at 9:22 PM, Chris Howe wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> David,
> >>>>> Can you point me to where the copyright policy
> >>>>> addresses the contributors as being the copyright
> >>>>> holders for the OFBiz code instead of ASF?
> >>>> <inquiring
> >>>>> tone, not skepticism> I'm not seeing them in
> >>>> NOTICE
> >>>>> or LICENSE, but they are rather long :-)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> TIA,
> >>>>> Chris
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --- "David E. Jones" <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Chris,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Have you read the ASF licensing and copyright
> >>>> policy
> >>>>>> documents? They
> >>>>>> address this, and in general this sort of thing
> >>>> in
> >>>>>> pretty good detail.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Don't worry, you're not the first to notice this.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> As for copyright statements in other projects:
> >>>> there
> >>>>>> are certain
> >>>>>> cases where the files are not 100% licensed
> >>>> through
> >>>>>> the ASF, but are
> >>>>>> rather a combination of third party code and code
> >>>>>> developer for/
> >>>>>> through the ASF. Also not that while it is the
> >>>>>> responsibility of
> >>>>>> committers to monitor this sort of thing in
> >>>> patches
> >>>>>> and their own
> >>>>>> work, we do sometimes make mistakes. In general
> >>>> for
> >>>>>> the OFBiz code it
> >>>>>> has been thoroughly reviewed and such things well
> >>>>>> vetted through the
> >>>>>> incubation process.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -David
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Jan 14, 2007, at 8:45 PM, Chris Howe wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> While searching for more answers on how to make
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>>> ofbiz-sandbox ASF friendly (both legally and ASF
> >>>>>>> administrative safe guard wise), I came across a
> >>>>>>> distinction between contributions to the Free
> >>>>>> Software
> >>>>>>> Foundation (FSF) and contributions to the ASF
> >>>> that
> >>>>>> I
> >>>>>>> think may have been inadequately addressed in
> >>>>>> OFBiz.
> >>>>>>> IANAL.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Contributions to FSF require a copyright
> >>>>>> assignment,
> >>>>>>> while contributions to ASF generally, simply
> >>>> grant
> >>>>>>> license of use, modification, etc. This
> >>>>>> distinction
> >>>>>>> allows FSF software to carry the copyright
> >>>> notice
> >>>>>>> "Copyright YYYY The Free Software Foundation" by
> >>>>>>> itself.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I looked at a couple of the other ASF TLPs and
> >>>>>> noticed
> >>>>>>> they were either missing a copyright notice in
> >>>>>>> individual files or in the case of Geronimo, had
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>>> following:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> * Copyright 2004, 2005 The Apache Software
> >>>>>> Foundation
> >>>>>>> or its licensors, as applicable.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I only looked at a couple files, so this is no
> >>>>>> where
> >>>>>>> near a comprehensive search. As it is now,
> >>>> nearly
> >>>>>>> every file in OFBiz says:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Copyright 2001-2006 The Apache Software
> >>>>>> Foundation
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Which perhaps in and of itself is a copyright
> >>>>>>> violation. One for the beginning year (it may be
> >>>>>>> materially false as I wouldn't think a copyright
> >>>>>> can
> >>>>>>> be assigned retroactively) and two for the
> >>>>>> exclusion
> >>>>>>> of those who may actually have the copyright
> >>>> (the
> >>>>>>> author, etc). To my knowledge, there was no
> >>>>>> request
> >>>>>>> to the community for copyright assignment.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I hope no one construes this as causing a fuss
> >>>> or
> >>>>>> as a
> >>>>>>> distraction. One of the reasons for the move to
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>>> ASF for the project, as I understood it, was a
> >>>>>>> proactive step to avoid legal hassles. I just
> >>>>>> want us
> >>>>>>> to take advantage of that benefit and protect
> >>>> all
> >>>>>> of
> >>>>>>> our hard work.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> TIA for your feedback,
> >>>>>>> Chris
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
Re: Copyright Statement
Posted by "David E. Jones" <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
What kind of stuff do you imagine going into such a sandbox?
-David
On Jan 15, 2007, at 9:42 PM, Daniel Kunkel wrote:
> David
>
> I'd like to give one more try at seeing if we can set something up
> WITH-
> IN the Apache OFBiz Project for sandboxed developments and developers.
>
> Chris seems to be really working to create something that he, I and
> probably others feel is really needed. These legal challenges he is
> facing in trying to create something that will help and can easily be
> accpeted into the Apache OFBiz project seem needless.
>
> Couldn't we add a sandbox directory somewhere in the project where
> non-
> trunk approved contributors could collaborate on secondary projects. I
> believe I'm correct in thinking that svn access to a single directory
> would be relatively easy to administer, and the developments in that
> structure would automatically pass all Apache legal requirements.
>
> Thanks
>
> Daniel
>
>
>
> On Mon, 2007-01-15 at 20:47 -0700, David E. Jones wrote:
>> Chris,
>>
>> Hopefully the resource J. Aaron linked to answers your question about
>> copyrights. Note that in that same area of the site there are various
>> pages with helpful related information.
>>
>> The comments from Leo Simmons on the incubator mailing list were
>> helpful too.
>>
>> As I understand it however the intellectual property is created it is
>> the responsibility of the PMC to review the intellectual property
>> issues and incorporate the code into the open source project. That's
>> the only way it gets in. This may sound a little bit heavy handed,
>> but that is how the organization is setup.
>>
>> As Leo mentioned there may be scenarios that are not well met by this
>> structure, and yes without working directly with a committer on an
>> effort collaboration through the SVN repo of the project is more
>> difficult, but I still highly recommend it. There are major
>> advantages to working on things through the resources of the project
>> rather than doing things on your own and then trying to work it into
>> the project.
>>
>> I have updated the Contributors Best Practices page on docs.ofbiz.org
>> about this, and I highly recommend reading it, for anyone and
>> everyone who is working with OFBiz. I made a few changes to make
>> certain things more clear, but most of the issues discussed in this
>> and other threads recently were actually already addressed on that
>> page. Here is a link to it:
>>
>> http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/r
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>> On Jan 14, 2007, at 10:24 PM, Chris Howe wrote:
>>
>>> David,
>>>
>>> Let me know at which point I become a pain in my
>>> inquiry about this. It's really not my intention. I'm
>>> still looking for a model that I can use to offer
>>> contributions with the least amount of administrative
>>> work necessary from the sandbox to the ASF. Copying
>>> the manner that OFBiz is able to place the copyright
>>> ASF placard on every file without notice of other
>>> copyright holders in that file would seem the path of
>>> least resistance. I'm trying to find the legal theory
>>> being used as my understanding is that there is only a
>>> license grant being offered from contributors and not
>>> copyright assignment with the Apache License v2.
>>>
>>> If I'm able to make a valid claim to copyright and
>>> exclude other holders, then I'm able to appropriately
>>> grant license to the ASF.
>>>
>>> If the ASF doesn't hold copyright in it's entirety,
>>> then I would think this would need to be clarified
>>> somewhere inside the project(ie LICENSE or NOTICE
>>> files). Even failing that need, the only thing I'm
>>> finding on apache.org is the intent to gain copyright
>>> ownership approved in past board minutes but never an
>>> actual vehicle to attain copyright ownership.
>>> ie used the google search
>>> site:www.apache.org copyright assignment
>>>
>>> Can you point me to a definitive place for this
>>> answer?
>>>
>>> TIA,
>>> Chris
>>>
>>> --- "David E. Jones" <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Chris,
>>>>
>>>> Do you mean the NOTICE and LICENSE files in OFBiz?
>>>> You'll only find
>>>> information on libraries included and their
>>>> corresponding licenses in
>>>> those files.
>>>>
>>>> I recommend looking on the apache.org site for
>>>> general information
>>>> about the ASF and its policies.
>>>>
>>>> -David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 14, 2007, at 9:22 PM, Chris Howe wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> David,
>>>>> Can you point me to where the copyright policy
>>>>> addresses the contributors as being the copyright
>>>>> holders for the OFBiz code instead of ASF?
>>>> <inquiring
>>>>> tone, not skepticism> I'm not seeing them in
>>>> NOTICE
>>>>> or LICENSE, but they are rather long :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> TIA,
>>>>> Chris
>>>>>
>>>>> --- "David E. Jones" <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Chris,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Have you read the ASF licensing and copyright
>>>> policy
>>>>>> documents? They
>>>>>> address this, and in general this sort of thing
>>>> in
>>>>>> pretty good detail.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Don't worry, you're not the first to notice this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As for copyright statements in other projects:
>>>> there
>>>>>> are certain
>>>>>> cases where the files are not 100% licensed
>>>> through
>>>>>> the ASF, but are
>>>>>> rather a combination of third party code and code
>>>>>> developer for/
>>>>>> through the ASF. Also not that while it is the
>>>>>> responsibility of
>>>>>> committers to monitor this sort of thing in
>>>> patches
>>>>>> and their own
>>>>>> work, we do sometimes make mistakes. In general
>>>> for
>>>>>> the OFBiz code it
>>>>>> has been thoroughly reviewed and such things well
>>>>>> vetted through the
>>>>>> incubation process.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jan 14, 2007, at 8:45 PM, Chris Howe wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> While searching for more answers on how to make
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> ofbiz-sandbox ASF friendly (both legally and ASF
>>>>>>> administrative safe guard wise), I came across a
>>>>>>> distinction between contributions to the Free
>>>>>> Software
>>>>>>> Foundation (FSF) and contributions to the ASF
>>>> that
>>>>>> I
>>>>>>> think may have been inadequately addressed in
>>>>>> OFBiz.
>>>>>>> IANAL.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Contributions to FSF require a copyright
>>>>>> assignment,
>>>>>>> while contributions to ASF generally, simply
>>>> grant
>>>>>>> license of use, modification, etc. This
>>>>>> distinction
>>>>>>> allows FSF software to carry the copyright
>>>> notice
>>>>>>> "Copyright YYYY The Free Software Foundation" by
>>>>>>> itself.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I looked at a couple of the other ASF TLPs and
>>>>>> noticed
>>>>>>> they were either missing a copyright notice in
>>>>>>> individual files or in the case of Geronimo, had
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> following:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> * Copyright 2004, 2005 The Apache Software
>>>>>> Foundation
>>>>>>> or its licensors, as applicable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I only looked at a couple files, so this is no
>>>>>> where
>>>>>>> near a comprehensive search. As it is now,
>>>> nearly
>>>>>>> every file in OFBiz says:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Copyright 2001-2006 The Apache Software
>>>>>> Foundation
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which perhaps in and of itself is a copyright
>>>>>>> violation. One for the beginning year (it may be
>>>>>>> materially false as I wouldn't think a copyright
>>>>>> can
>>>>>>> be assigned retroactively) and two for the
>>>>>> exclusion
>>>>>>> of those who may actually have the copyright
>>>> (the
>>>>>>> author, etc). To my knowledge, there was no
>>>>>> request
>>>>>>> to the community for copyright assignment.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I hope no one construes this as causing a fuss
>>>> or
>>>>>> as a
>>>>>>> distraction. One of the reasons for the move to
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> ASF for the project, as I understood it, was a
>>>>>>> proactive step to avoid legal hassles. I just
>>>>>> want us
>>>>>>> to take advantage of that benefit and protect
>>>> all
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> our hard work.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> TIA for your feedback,
>>>>>>> Chris
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: Copyright Statement
Posted by Chris Howe <cj...@yahoo.com>.
+1 :-)
--- Daniel Kunkel <Da...@BioWaves.com> wrote:
> David
>
> I'd like to give one more try at seeing if we can
> set something up WITH-
> IN the Apache OFBiz Project for sandboxed
> developments and developers.
>
> Chris seems to be really working to create something
> that he, I and
> probably others feel is really needed. These legal
> challenges he is
> facing in trying to create something that will help
> and can easily be
> accpeted into the Apache OFBiz project seem
> needless.
>
> Couldn't we add a sandbox directory somewhere in the
> project where non-
> trunk approved contributors could collaborate on
> secondary projects. I
> believe I'm correct in thinking that svn access to a
> single directory
> would be relatively easy to administer, and the
> developments in that
> structure would automatically pass all Apache legal
> requirements.
>
> Thanks
>
> Daniel
>
>
>
> On Mon, 2007-01-15 at 20:47 -0700, David E. Jones
> wrote:
> > Chris,
> >
> > Hopefully the resource J. Aaron linked to answers
> your question about
> > copyrights. Note that in that same area of the
> site there are various
> > pages with helpful related information.
> >
> > The comments from Leo Simmons on the incubator
> mailing list were
> > helpful too.
> >
> > As I understand it however the intellectual
> property is created it is
> > the responsibility of the PMC to review the
> intellectual property
> > issues and incorporate the code into the open
> source project. That's
> > the only way it gets in. This may sound a little
> bit heavy handed,
> > but that is how the organization is setup.
> >
> > As Leo mentioned there may be scenarios that are
> not well met by this
> > structure, and yes without working directly with a
> committer on an
> > effort collaboration through the SVN repo of the
> project is more
> > difficult, but I still highly recommend it. There
> are major
> > advantages to working on things through the
> resources of the project
> > rather than doing things on your own and then
> trying to work it into
> > the project.
> >
> > I have updated the Contributors Best Practices
> page on docs.ofbiz.org
> > about this, and I highly recommend reading it, for
> anyone and
> > everyone who is working with OFBiz. I made a few
> changes to make
> > certain things more clear, but most of the issues
> discussed in this
> > and other threads recently were actually already
> addressed on that
> > page. Here is a link to it:
> >
> > http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/r
> >
> > -David
> >
> >
> > On Jan 14, 2007, at 10:24 PM, Chris Howe wrote:
> >
> > > David,
> > >
> > > Let me know at which point I become a pain in my
> > > inquiry about this. It's really not my
> intention. I'm
> > > still looking for a model that I can use to
> offer
> > > contributions with the least amount of
> administrative
> > > work necessary from the sandbox to the ASF.
> Copying
> > > the manner that OFBiz is able to place the
> copyright
> > > ASF placard on every file without notice of
> other
> > > copyright holders in that file would seem the
> path of
> > > least resistance. I'm trying to find the legal
> theory
> > > being used as my understanding is that there is
> only a
> > > license grant being offered from contributors
> and not
> > > copyright assignment with the Apache License v2.
> > >
> > > If I'm able to make a valid claim to copyright
> and
> > > exclude other holders, then I'm able to
> appropriately
> > > grant license to the ASF.
> > >
> > > If the ASF doesn't hold copyright in it's
> entirety,
> > > then I would think this would need to be
> clarified
> > > somewhere inside the project(ie LICENSE or
> NOTICE
> > > files). Even failing that need, the only thing
> I'm
> > > finding on apache.org is the intent to gain
> copyright
> > > ownership approved in past board minutes but
> never an
> > > actual vehicle to attain copyright ownership.
> > > ie used the google search
> > > site:www.apache.org copyright assignment
> > >
> > > Can you point me to a definitive place for this
> > > answer?
> > >
> > > TIA,
> > > Chris
> > >
> > > --- "David E. Jones" <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Chris,
> > >>
> > >> Do you mean the NOTICE and LICENSE files in
> OFBiz?
> > >> You'll only find
> > >> information on libraries included and their
> > >> corresponding licenses in
> > >> those files.
> > >>
> > >> I recommend looking on the apache.org site for
> > >> general information
> > >> about the ASF and its policies.
> > >>
> > >> -David
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Jan 14, 2007, at 9:22 PM, Chris Howe wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> David,
> > >>> Can you point me to where the copyright policy
> > >>> addresses the contributors as being the
> copyright
> > >>> holders for the OFBiz code instead of ASF?
> > >> <inquiring
> > >>> tone, not skepticism> I'm not seeing them in
> > >> NOTICE
> > >>> or LICENSE, but they are rather long :-)
> > >>>
> > >>> TIA,
> > >>> Chris
> > >>>
> > >>> --- "David E. Jones" <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Chris,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Have you read the ASF licensing and copyright
> > >> policy
> > >>>> documents? They
> > >>>> address this, and in general this sort of
> thing
> > >> in
> > >>>> pretty good detail.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Don't worry, you're not the first to notice
> this.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> As for copyright statements in other
> projects:
> > >> there
> > >>>> are certain
> > >>>> cases where the files are not 100% licensed
> > >> through
>
=== message truncated ===
Re: Copyright Statement
Posted by Daniel Kunkel <Da...@BioWaves.com>.
David
I'd like to give one more try at seeing if we can set something up WITH-
IN the Apache OFBiz Project for sandboxed developments and developers.
Chris seems to be really working to create something that he, I and
probably others feel is really needed. These legal challenges he is
facing in trying to create something that will help and can easily be
accpeted into the Apache OFBiz project seem needless.
Couldn't we add a sandbox directory somewhere in the project where non-
trunk approved contributors could collaborate on secondary projects. I
believe I'm correct in thinking that svn access to a single directory
would be relatively easy to administer, and the developments in that
structure would automatically pass all Apache legal requirements.
Thanks
Daniel
On Mon, 2007-01-15 at 20:47 -0700, David E. Jones wrote:
> Chris,
>
> Hopefully the resource J. Aaron linked to answers your question about
> copyrights. Note that in that same area of the site there are various
> pages with helpful related information.
>
> The comments from Leo Simmons on the incubator mailing list were
> helpful too.
>
> As I understand it however the intellectual property is created it is
> the responsibility of the PMC to review the intellectual property
> issues and incorporate the code into the open source project. That's
> the only way it gets in. This may sound a little bit heavy handed,
> but that is how the organization is setup.
>
> As Leo mentioned there may be scenarios that are not well met by this
> structure, and yes without working directly with a committer on an
> effort collaboration through the SVN repo of the project is more
> difficult, but I still highly recommend it. There are major
> advantages to working on things through the resources of the project
> rather than doing things on your own and then trying to work it into
> the project.
>
> I have updated the Contributors Best Practices page on docs.ofbiz.org
> about this, and I highly recommend reading it, for anyone and
> everyone who is working with OFBiz. I made a few changes to make
> certain things more clear, but most of the issues discussed in this
> and other threads recently were actually already addressed on that
> page. Here is a link to it:
>
> http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/r
>
> -David
>
>
> On Jan 14, 2007, at 10:24 PM, Chris Howe wrote:
>
> > David,
> >
> > Let me know at which point I become a pain in my
> > inquiry about this. It's really not my intention. I'm
> > still looking for a model that I can use to offer
> > contributions with the least amount of administrative
> > work necessary from the sandbox to the ASF. Copying
> > the manner that OFBiz is able to place the copyright
> > ASF placard on every file without notice of other
> > copyright holders in that file would seem the path of
> > least resistance. I'm trying to find the legal theory
> > being used as my understanding is that there is only a
> > license grant being offered from contributors and not
> > copyright assignment with the Apache License v2.
> >
> > If I'm able to make a valid claim to copyright and
> > exclude other holders, then I'm able to appropriately
> > grant license to the ASF.
> >
> > If the ASF doesn't hold copyright in it's entirety,
> > then I would think this would need to be clarified
> > somewhere inside the project(ie LICENSE or NOTICE
> > files). Even failing that need, the only thing I'm
> > finding on apache.org is the intent to gain copyright
> > ownership approved in past board minutes but never an
> > actual vehicle to attain copyright ownership.
> > ie used the google search
> > site:www.apache.org copyright assignment
> >
> > Can you point me to a definitive place for this
> > answer?
> >
> > TIA,
> > Chris
> >
> > --- "David E. Jones" <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Chris,
> >>
> >> Do you mean the NOTICE and LICENSE files in OFBiz?
> >> You'll only find
> >> information on libraries included and their
> >> corresponding licenses in
> >> those files.
> >>
> >> I recommend looking on the apache.org site for
> >> general information
> >> about the ASF and its policies.
> >>
> >> -David
> >>
> >>
> >> On Jan 14, 2007, at 9:22 PM, Chris Howe wrote:
> >>
> >>> David,
> >>> Can you point me to where the copyright policy
> >>> addresses the contributors as being the copyright
> >>> holders for the OFBiz code instead of ASF?
> >> <inquiring
> >>> tone, not skepticism> I'm not seeing them in
> >> NOTICE
> >>> or LICENSE, but they are rather long :-)
> >>>
> >>> TIA,
> >>> Chris
> >>>
> >>> --- "David E. Jones" <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Chris,
> >>>>
> >>>> Have you read the ASF licensing and copyright
> >> policy
> >>>> documents? They
> >>>> address this, and in general this sort of thing
> >> in
> >>>> pretty good detail.
> >>>>
> >>>> Don't worry, you're not the first to notice this.
> >>>>
> >>>> As for copyright statements in other projects:
> >> there
> >>>> are certain
> >>>> cases where the files are not 100% licensed
> >> through
> >>>> the ASF, but are
> >>>> rather a combination of third party code and code
> >>>> developer for/
> >>>> through the ASF. Also not that while it is the
> >>>> responsibility of
> >>>> committers to monitor this sort of thing in
> >> patches
> >>>> and their own
> >>>> work, we do sometimes make mistakes. In general
> >> for
> >>>> the OFBiz code it
> >>>> has been thoroughly reviewed and such things well
> >>>> vetted through the
> >>>> incubation process.
> >>>>
> >>>> -David
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Jan 14, 2007, at 8:45 PM, Chris Howe wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> While searching for more answers on how to make
> >>>> the
> >>>>> ofbiz-sandbox ASF friendly (both legally and ASF
> >>>>> administrative safe guard wise), I came across a
> >>>>> distinction between contributions to the Free
> >>>> Software
> >>>>> Foundation (FSF) and contributions to the ASF
> >> that
> >>>> I
> >>>>> think may have been inadequately addressed in
> >>>> OFBiz.
> >>>>> IANAL.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Contributions to FSF require a copyright
> >>>> assignment,
> >>>>> while contributions to ASF generally, simply
> >> grant
> >>>>> license of use, modification, etc. This
> >>>> distinction
> >>>>> allows FSF software to carry the copyright
> >> notice
> >>>>> "Copyright YYYY The Free Software Foundation" by
> >>>>> itself.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I looked at a couple of the other ASF TLPs and
> >>>> noticed
> >>>>> they were either missing a copyright notice in
> >>>>> individual files or in the case of Geronimo, had
> >>>> the
> >>>>> following:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> * Copyright 2004, 2005 The Apache Software
> >>>> Foundation
> >>>>> or its licensors, as applicable.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I only looked at a couple files, so this is no
> >>>> where
> >>>>> near a comprehensive search. As it is now,
> >> nearly
> >>>>> every file in OFBiz says:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Copyright 2001-2006 The Apache Software
> >>>> Foundation
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Which perhaps in and of itself is a copyright
> >>>>> violation. One for the beginning year (it may be
> >>>>> materially false as I wouldn't think a copyright
> >>>> can
> >>>>> be assigned retroactively) and two for the
> >>>> exclusion
> >>>>> of those who may actually have the copyright
> >> (the
> >>>>> author, etc). To my knowledge, there was no
> >>>> request
> >>>>> to the community for copyright assignment.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I hope no one construes this as causing a fuss
> >> or
> >>>> as a
> >>>>> distraction. One of the reasons for the move to
> >>>> the
> >>>>> ASF for the project, as I understood it, was a
> >>>>> proactive step to avoid legal hassles. I just
> >>>> want us
> >>>>> to take advantage of that benefit and protect
> >> all
> >>>> of
> >>>>> our hard work.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> TIA for your feedback,
> >>>>> Chris
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
Re: Copyright Statement
Posted by "David E. Jones" <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
Chris,
Hopefully the resource J. Aaron linked to answers your question about
copyrights. Note that in that same area of the site there are various
pages with helpful related information.
The comments from Leo Simmons on the incubator mailing list were
helpful too.
As I understand it however the intellectual property is created it is
the responsibility of the PMC to review the intellectual property
issues and incorporate the code into the open source project. That's
the only way it gets in. This may sound a little bit heavy handed,
but that is how the organization is setup.
As Leo mentioned there may be scenarios that are not well met by this
structure, and yes without working directly with a committer on an
effort collaboration through the SVN repo of the project is more
difficult, but I still highly recommend it. There are major
advantages to working on things through the resources of the project
rather than doing things on your own and then trying to work it into
the project.
I have updated the Contributors Best Practices page on docs.ofbiz.org
about this, and I highly recommend reading it, for anyone and
everyone who is working with OFBiz. I made a few changes to make
certain things more clear, but most of the issues discussed in this
and other threads recently were actually already addressed on that
page. Here is a link to it:
http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/r
-David
On Jan 14, 2007, at 10:24 PM, Chris Howe wrote:
> David,
>
> Let me know at which point I become a pain in my
> inquiry about this. It's really not my intention. I'm
> still looking for a model that I can use to offer
> contributions with the least amount of administrative
> work necessary from the sandbox to the ASF. Copying
> the manner that OFBiz is able to place the copyright
> ASF placard on every file without notice of other
> copyright holders in that file would seem the path of
> least resistance. I'm trying to find the legal theory
> being used as my understanding is that there is only a
> license grant being offered from contributors and not
> copyright assignment with the Apache License v2.
>
> If I'm able to make a valid claim to copyright and
> exclude other holders, then I'm able to appropriately
> grant license to the ASF.
>
> If the ASF doesn't hold copyright in it's entirety,
> then I would think this would need to be clarified
> somewhere inside the project(ie LICENSE or NOTICE
> files). Even failing that need, the only thing I'm
> finding on apache.org is the intent to gain copyright
> ownership approved in past board minutes but never an
> actual vehicle to attain copyright ownership.
> ie used the google search
> site:www.apache.org copyright assignment
>
> Can you point me to a definitive place for this
> answer?
>
> TIA,
> Chris
>
> --- "David E. Jones" <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Chris,
>>
>> Do you mean the NOTICE and LICENSE files in OFBiz?
>> You'll only find
>> information on libraries included and their
>> corresponding licenses in
>> those files.
>>
>> I recommend looking on the apache.org site for
>> general information
>> about the ASF and its policies.
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>> On Jan 14, 2007, at 9:22 PM, Chris Howe wrote:
>>
>>> David,
>>> Can you point me to where the copyright policy
>>> addresses the contributors as being the copyright
>>> holders for the OFBiz code instead of ASF?
>> <inquiring
>>> tone, not skepticism> I'm not seeing them in
>> NOTICE
>>> or LICENSE, but they are rather long :-)
>>>
>>> TIA,
>>> Chris
>>>
>>> --- "David E. Jones" <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Chris,
>>>>
>>>> Have you read the ASF licensing and copyright
>> policy
>>>> documents? They
>>>> address this, and in general this sort of thing
>> in
>>>> pretty good detail.
>>>>
>>>> Don't worry, you're not the first to notice this.
>>>>
>>>> As for copyright statements in other projects:
>> there
>>>> are certain
>>>> cases where the files are not 100% licensed
>> through
>>>> the ASF, but are
>>>> rather a combination of third party code and code
>>>> developer for/
>>>> through the ASF. Also not that while it is the
>>>> responsibility of
>>>> committers to monitor this sort of thing in
>> patches
>>>> and their own
>>>> work, we do sometimes make mistakes. In general
>> for
>>>> the OFBiz code it
>>>> has been thoroughly reviewed and such things well
>>>> vetted through the
>>>> incubation process.
>>>>
>>>> -David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 14, 2007, at 8:45 PM, Chris Howe wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> While searching for more answers on how to make
>>>> the
>>>>> ofbiz-sandbox ASF friendly (both legally and ASF
>>>>> administrative safe guard wise), I came across a
>>>>> distinction between contributions to the Free
>>>> Software
>>>>> Foundation (FSF) and contributions to the ASF
>> that
>>>> I
>>>>> think may have been inadequately addressed in
>>>> OFBiz.
>>>>> IANAL.
>>>>>
>>>>> Contributions to FSF require a copyright
>>>> assignment,
>>>>> while contributions to ASF generally, simply
>> grant
>>>>> license of use, modification, etc. This
>>>> distinction
>>>>> allows FSF software to carry the copyright
>> notice
>>>>> "Copyright YYYY The Free Software Foundation" by
>>>>> itself.
>>>>>
>>>>> I looked at a couple of the other ASF TLPs and
>>>> noticed
>>>>> they were either missing a copyright notice in
>>>>> individual files or in the case of Geronimo, had
>>>> the
>>>>> following:
>>>>>
>>>>> * Copyright 2004, 2005 The Apache Software
>>>> Foundation
>>>>> or its licensors, as applicable.
>>>>>
>>>>> I only looked at a couple files, so this is no
>>>> where
>>>>> near a comprehensive search. As it is now,
>> nearly
>>>>> every file in OFBiz says:
>>>>>
>>>>> Copyright 2001-2006 The Apache Software
>>>> Foundation
>>>>>
>>>>> Which perhaps in and of itself is a copyright
>>>>> violation. One for the beginning year (it may be
>>>>> materially false as I wouldn't think a copyright
>>>> can
>>>>> be assigned retroactively) and two for the
>>>> exclusion
>>>>> of those who may actually have the copyright
>> (the
>>>>> author, etc). To my knowledge, there was no
>>>> request
>>>>> to the community for copyright assignment.
>>>>>
>>>>> I hope no one construes this as causing a fuss
>> or
>>>> as a
>>>>> distraction. One of the reasons for the move to
>>>> the
>>>>> ASF for the project, as I understood it, was a
>>>>> proactive step to avoid legal hassles. I just
>>>> want us
>>>>> to take advantage of that benefit and protect
>> all
>>>> of
>>>>> our hard work.
>>>>>
>>>>> TIA for your feedback,
>>>>> Chris
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
Re: Copyright Statement
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.
David,
OK, I will have to do it on Linux because doing it on Windows is generating inconsistent end of lines (trapped when doing a command
line "svn di > test.log" to check work done)
Jacques
>
> Jacques,
>
> I think it's fine to put these in for now, especially if you've
> already gone through the bulk of the work. That at least leaves less
> files to worry about later.
>
> As for the ModelInfo and DatabaseUtil files, manual changes are fine.
> Note that they are probably failing because of some default meta-data
> that includes copyright strings, and those can probably stay just
> fine for now.
>
> -David
>
>
> On Jan 16, 2007, at 8:18 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>
> > David & all,
> >
> > I checked the result of work done by Eclipse "Advanced fix
> > copyrights" option in Navigator and it turned just great but for *java
> > and properties files* only.
> > It generates a copyrightLog.txt file in workspace root directory
> > (it may work on many projects at a time). In this file I found that
> > only 2 files were not modified to new ASL2 licence. It says
> >
> > Multiple copyrights found. File UNCHANGED.
> > ModelInfo.java
> > DatabaseUtil.java
> >
> > I checked this files and actually there a some copyright infos
> > generated in. It seems that ModelInfo.java body has to be updated,
> > licence may be updated by hand. Same for DatabaseUtil.java but
> > simpler.
> >
> > I changed this 2 files by hand. Now I'm asking myself : should I
> > commit this changes (java an properties only) or do you prefer that
> > we test perl batches before ?
> >
> > This tool was used by Eclipse project when they changed licence
> > from 2.1 o 3.1.
> >
> > Jacques
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Jacques Le Roux" <ja...@les7arts.com>
> > To: <de...@ofbiz.apache.org>
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 3:10 PM
> > Subject: Re: Copyright Statement
> >
> >
> >> Eclipse "Fix copyright" option workss well but only on java and
> >> properties files. I will revert and try the batch now.
> >>
> >> Jacques
> >>
> >> From: "Jacques Le Roux" <ja...@les7arts.com>
> >>> David,
> >>>
> >>> From: "David E. Jones" <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Jan 15, 2007, at 8:41 PM, Chris Howe wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Thanks J Aaron!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> David, as per that link, should we make a JIRA issue
> >>>>> to remove the copyright notice from the source
> >>>>> headers?
> >>>>
> >>>> Interesting... it looks like that page has changed since our pre-
> >>>> graduation review was done a few months ago.
> >>>>
> >>>> And yes, according to the new information we need to get this done
> >>>> before we do the release branch.
> >>>>
> >>>> It looks like there are some scripts created for this that can
> >>>> help out.
> >>>>
> >>>> Any volunteers to give this a try?
> >>>
> >>> I will take a look at this this afternoon (it's 14h00 here). I
> >>> will also look into Eclipse Licence option (contextual menu in
> >>> navigator).
> >>>
> >>> Jacques
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> -David
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >
>
>
Re: Copyright Statement
Posted by "David E. Jones" <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
Jacques,
I think it's fine to put these in for now, especially if you've
already gone through the bulk of the work. That at least leaves less
files to worry about later.
As for the ModelInfo and DatabaseUtil files, manual changes are fine.
Note that they are probably failing because of some default meta-data
that includes copyright strings, and those can probably stay just
fine for now.
-David
On Jan 16, 2007, at 8:18 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> David & all,
>
> I checked the result of work done by Eclipse "Advanced fix
> copyrights" option in Navigator and it turned just great but for *java
> and properties files* only.
> It generates a copyrightLog.txt file in workspace root directory
> (it may work on many projects at a time). In this file I found that
> only 2 files were not modified to new ASL2 licence. It says
>
> Multiple copyrights found. File UNCHANGED.
> ModelInfo.java
> DatabaseUtil.java
>
> I checked this files and actually there a some copyright infos
> generated in. It seems that ModelInfo.java body has to be updated,
> licence may be updated by hand. Same for DatabaseUtil.java but
> simpler.
>
> I changed this 2 files by hand. Now I'm asking myself : should I
> commit this changes (java an properties only) or do you prefer that
> we test perl batches before ?
>
> This tool was used by Eclipse project when they changed licence
> from 2.1 o 3.1.
>
> Jacques
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jacques Le Roux" <ja...@les7arts.com>
> To: <de...@ofbiz.apache.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 3:10 PM
> Subject: Re: Copyright Statement
>
>
>> Eclipse "Fix copyright" option workss well but only on java and
>> properties files. I will revert and try the batch now.
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>> From: "Jacques Le Roux" <ja...@les7arts.com>
>>> David,
>>>
>>> From: "David E. Jones" <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 15, 2007, at 8:41 PM, Chris Howe wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks J Aaron!
>>>>>
>>>>> David, as per that link, should we make a JIRA issue
>>>>> to remove the copyright notice from the source
>>>>> headers?
>>>>
>>>> Interesting... it looks like that page has changed since our pre-
>>>> graduation review was done a few months ago.
>>>>
>>>> And yes, according to the new information we need to get this done
>>>> before we do the release branch.
>>>>
>>>> It looks like there are some scripts created for this that can
>>>> help out.
>>>>
>>>> Any volunteers to give this a try?
>>>
>>> I will take a look at this this afternoon (it's 14h00 here). I
>>> will also look into Eclipse Licence option (contextual menu in
>>> navigator).
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> -David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
Re: Copyright Statement
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.
David & all,
I checked the result of work done by Eclipse "Advanced fix copyrights" option in Navigator and it turned just great but for *java
and properties files* only.
It generates a copyrightLog.txt file in workspace root directory (it may work on many projects at a time). In this file I found that
only 2 files were not modified to new ASL2 licence. It says
Multiple copyrights found. File UNCHANGED.
ModelInfo.java
DatabaseUtil.java
I checked this files and actually there a some copyright infos generated in. It seems that ModelInfo.java body has to be updated,
licence may be updated by hand. Same for DatabaseUtil.java but simpler.
I changed this 2 files by hand. Now I'm asking myself : should I commit this changes (java an properties only) or do you prefer that
we test perl batches before ?
This tool was used by Eclipse project when they changed licence from 2.1 o 3.1.
Jacques
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jacques Le Roux" <ja...@les7arts.com>
To: <de...@ofbiz.apache.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 3:10 PM
Subject: Re: Copyright Statement
> Eclipse "Fix copyright" option workss well but only on java and properties files. I will revert and try the batch now.
>
> Jacques
>
> From: "Jacques Le Roux" <ja...@les7arts.com>
> > David,
> >
> > From: "David E. Jones" <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com>
> > >
> > > On Jan 15, 2007, at 8:41 PM, Chris Howe wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thanks J Aaron!
> > > >
> > > > David, as per that link, should we make a JIRA issue
> > > > to remove the copyright notice from the source
> > > > headers?
> > >
> > > Interesting... it looks like that page has changed since our pre-
> > > graduation review was done a few months ago.
> > >
> > > And yes, according to the new information we need to get this done
> > > before we do the release branch.
> > >
> > > It looks like there are some scripts created for this that can help out.
> > >
> > > Any volunteers to give this a try?
> >
> > I will take a look at this this afternoon (it's 14h00 here). I will also look into Eclipse Licence option (contextual menu in
> > navigator).
> >
> > Jacques
> >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > -David
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
Re: Copyright Statement
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.
Eclipse "Fix copyright" option workss well but only on java and properties files. I will revert and try the batch now.
Jacques
From: "Jacques Le Roux" <ja...@les7arts.com>
> David,
>
> From: "David E. Jones" <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com>
> >
> > On Jan 15, 2007, at 8:41 PM, Chris Howe wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks J Aaron!
> > >
> > > David, as per that link, should we make a JIRA issue
> > > to remove the copyright notice from the source
> > > headers?
> >
> > Interesting... it looks like that page has changed since our pre-
> > graduation review was done a few months ago.
> >
> > And yes, according to the new information we need to get this done
> > before we do the release branch.
> >
> > It looks like there are some scripts created for this that can help out.
> >
> > Any volunteers to give this a try?
>
> I will take a look at this this afternoon (it's 14h00 here). I will also look into Eclipse Licence option (contextual menu in
> navigator).
>
> Jacques
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -David
> >
> >
> >
Re: Copyright Statement
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.
David,
From: "David E. Jones" <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>
> On Jan 15, 2007, at 8:41 PM, Chris Howe wrote:
>
> > Thanks J Aaron!
> >
> > David, as per that link, should we make a JIRA issue
> > to remove the copyright notice from the source
> > headers?
>
> Interesting... it looks like that page has changed since our pre-
> graduation review was done a few months ago.
>
> And yes, according to the new information we need to get this done
> before we do the release branch.
>
> It looks like there are some scripts created for this that can help out.
>
> Any volunteers to give this a try?
I will take a look at this this afternoon (it's 14h00 here). I will also look into Eclipse Licence option (contextual menu in
navigator).
Jacques
>
> Thanks,
> -David
>
>
>
Re: Copyright Statement
Posted by "David E. Jones" <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
On Jan 15, 2007, at 8:41 PM, Chris Howe wrote:
> Thanks J Aaron!
>
> David, as per that link, should we make a JIRA issue
> to remove the copyright notice from the source
> headers?
Interesting... it looks like that page has changed since our pre-
graduation review was done a few months ago.
And yes, according to the new information we need to get this done
before we do the release branch.
It looks like there are some scripts created for this that can help out.
Any volunteers to give this a try?
Thanks,
-David
Re: Copyright Statement
Posted by Chris Howe <cj...@yahoo.com>.
Thanks J Aaron!
David, as per that link, should we make a JIRA issue
to remove the copyright notice from the source
headers?
I guess I'm still in search of a suitable model for
the sandbox. The closest thing I have is to have
contributors sign an individual and collective grant,
but I still don't like the liability that exposes for
what amounts to a temporary partnership.
--- J Aaron Farr <fa...@apache.org> wrote:
> Chris Howe <cj...@yahoo.com> writes:
> >
> > Can you point me to a definitive place for this
> > answer?
>
> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
>
>
> --
> jaaron
>
Re: Copyright Statement
Posted by J Aaron Farr <fa...@apache.org>.
Chris Howe <cj...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> Can you point me to a definitive place for this
> answer?
http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
--
jaaron
Re: Copyright Statement
Posted by Chris Howe <cj...@yahoo.com>.
David,
Let me know at which point I become a pain in my
inquiry about this. It's really not my intention. I'm
still looking for a model that I can use to offer
contributions with the least amount of administrative
work necessary from the sandbox to the ASF. Copying
the manner that OFBiz is able to place the copyright
ASF placard on every file without notice of other
copyright holders in that file would seem the path of
least resistance. I'm trying to find the legal theory
being used as my understanding is that there is only a
license grant being offered from contributors and not
copyright assignment with the Apache License v2.
If I'm able to make a valid claim to copyright and
exclude other holders, then I'm able to appropriately
grant license to the ASF.
If the ASF doesn't hold copyright in it's entirety,
then I would think this would need to be clarified
somewhere inside the project(ie LICENSE or NOTICE
files). Even failing that need, the only thing I'm
finding on apache.org is the intent to gain copyright
ownership approved in past board minutes but never an
actual vehicle to attain copyright ownership.
ie used the google search
site:www.apache.org copyright assignment
Can you point me to a definitive place for this
answer?
TIA,
Chris
--- "David E. Jones" <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com> wrote:
>
> Chris,
>
> Do you mean the NOTICE and LICENSE files in OFBiz?
> You'll only find
> information on libraries included and their
> corresponding licenses in
> those files.
>
> I recommend looking on the apache.org site for
> general information
> about the ASF and its policies.
>
> -David
>
>
> On Jan 14, 2007, at 9:22 PM, Chris Howe wrote:
>
> > David,
> > Can you point me to where the copyright policy
> > addresses the contributors as being the copyright
> > holders for the OFBiz code instead of ASF?
> <inquiring
> > tone, not skepticism> I'm not seeing them in
> NOTICE
> > or LICENSE, but they are rather long :-)
> >
> > TIA,
> > Chris
> >
> > --- "David E. Jones" <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Chris,
> >>
> >> Have you read the ASF licensing and copyright
> policy
> >> documents? They
> >> address this, and in general this sort of thing
> in
> >> pretty good detail.
> >>
> >> Don't worry, you're not the first to notice this.
> >>
> >> As for copyright statements in other projects:
> there
> >> are certain
> >> cases where the files are not 100% licensed
> through
> >> the ASF, but are
> >> rather a combination of third party code and code
> >> developer for/
> >> through the ASF. Also not that while it is the
> >> responsibility of
> >> committers to monitor this sort of thing in
> patches
> >> and their own
> >> work, we do sometimes make mistakes. In general
> for
> >> the OFBiz code it
> >> has been thoroughly reviewed and such things well
> >> vetted through the
> >> incubation process.
> >>
> >> -David
> >>
> >>
> >> On Jan 14, 2007, at 8:45 PM, Chris Howe wrote:
> >>
> >>> While searching for more answers on how to make
> >> the
> >>> ofbiz-sandbox ASF friendly (both legally and ASF
> >>> administrative safe guard wise), I came across a
> >>> distinction between contributions to the Free
> >> Software
> >>> Foundation (FSF) and contributions to the ASF
> that
> >> I
> >>> think may have been inadequately addressed in
> >> OFBiz.
> >>> IANAL.
> >>>
> >>> Contributions to FSF require a copyright
> >> assignment,
> >>> while contributions to ASF generally, simply
> grant
> >>> license of use, modification, etc. This
> >> distinction
> >>> allows FSF software to carry the copyright
> notice
> >>> "Copyright YYYY The Free Software Foundation" by
> >>> itself.
> >>>
> >>> I looked at a couple of the other ASF TLPs and
> >> noticed
> >>> they were either missing a copyright notice in
> >>> individual files or in the case of Geronimo, had
> >> the
> >>> following:
> >>>
> >>> * Copyright 2004, 2005 The Apache Software
> >> Foundation
> >>> or its licensors, as applicable.
> >>>
> >>> I only looked at a couple files, so this is no
> >> where
> >>> near a comprehensive search. As it is now,
> nearly
> >>> every file in OFBiz says:
> >>>
> >>> Copyright 2001-2006 The Apache Software
> >> Foundation
> >>>
> >>> Which perhaps in and of itself is a copyright
> >>> violation. One for the beginning year (it may be
> >>> materially false as I wouldn't think a copyright
> >> can
> >>> be assigned retroactively) and two for the
> >> exclusion
> >>> of those who may actually have the copyright
> (the
> >>> author, etc). To my knowledge, there was no
> >> request
> >>> to the community for copyright assignment.
> >>>
> >>> I hope no one construes this as causing a fuss
> or
> >> as a
> >>> distraction. One of the reasons for the move to
> >> the
> >>> ASF for the project, as I understood it, was a
> >>> proactive step to avoid legal hassles. I just
> >> want us
> >>> to take advantage of that benefit and protect
> all
> >> of
> >>> our hard work.
> >>>
> >>> TIA for your feedback,
> >>> Chris
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
Re: Copyright Statement
Posted by "David E. Jones" <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
Chris,
Do you mean the NOTICE and LICENSE files in OFBiz? You'll only find
information on libraries included and their corresponding licenses in
those files.
I recommend looking on the apache.org site for general information
about the ASF and its policies.
-David
On Jan 14, 2007, at 9:22 PM, Chris Howe wrote:
> David,
> Can you point me to where the copyright policy
> addresses the contributors as being the copyright
> holders for the OFBiz code instead of ASF? <inquiring
> tone, not skepticism> I'm not seeing them in NOTICE
> or LICENSE, but they are rather long :-)
>
> TIA,
> Chris
>
> --- "David E. Jones" <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Chris,
>>
>> Have you read the ASF licensing and copyright policy
>> documents? They
>> address this, and in general this sort of thing in
>> pretty good detail.
>>
>> Don't worry, you're not the first to notice this.
>>
>> As for copyright statements in other projects: there
>> are certain
>> cases where the files are not 100% licensed through
>> the ASF, but are
>> rather a combination of third party code and code
>> developer for/
>> through the ASF. Also not that while it is the
>> responsibility of
>> committers to monitor this sort of thing in patches
>> and their own
>> work, we do sometimes make mistakes. In general for
>> the OFBiz code it
>> has been thoroughly reviewed and such things well
>> vetted through the
>> incubation process.
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>> On Jan 14, 2007, at 8:45 PM, Chris Howe wrote:
>>
>>> While searching for more answers on how to make
>> the
>>> ofbiz-sandbox ASF friendly (both legally and ASF
>>> administrative safe guard wise), I came across a
>>> distinction between contributions to the Free
>> Software
>>> Foundation (FSF) and contributions to the ASF that
>> I
>>> think may have been inadequately addressed in
>> OFBiz.
>>> IANAL.
>>>
>>> Contributions to FSF require a copyright
>> assignment,
>>> while contributions to ASF generally, simply grant
>>> license of use, modification, etc. This
>> distinction
>>> allows FSF software to carry the copyright notice
>>> "Copyright YYYY The Free Software Foundation" by
>>> itself.
>>>
>>> I looked at a couple of the other ASF TLPs and
>> noticed
>>> they were either missing a copyright notice in
>>> individual files or in the case of Geronimo, had
>> the
>>> following:
>>>
>>> * Copyright 2004, 2005 The Apache Software
>> Foundation
>>> or its licensors, as applicable.
>>>
>>> I only looked at a couple files, so this is no
>> where
>>> near a comprehensive search. As it is now, nearly
>>> every file in OFBiz says:
>>>
>>> Copyright 2001-2006 The Apache Software
>> Foundation
>>>
>>> Which perhaps in and of itself is a copyright
>>> violation. One for the beginning year (it may be
>>> materially false as I wouldn't think a copyright
>> can
>>> be assigned retroactively) and two for the
>> exclusion
>>> of those who may actually have the copyright (the
>>> author, etc). To my knowledge, there was no
>> request
>>> to the community for copyright assignment.
>>>
>>> I hope no one construes this as causing a fuss or
>> as a
>>> distraction. One of the reasons for the move to
>> the
>>> ASF for the project, as I understood it, was a
>>> proactive step to avoid legal hassles. I just
>> want us
>>> to take advantage of that benefit and protect all
>> of
>>> our hard work.
>>>
>>> TIA for your feedback,
>>> Chris
>>
>>
>
Re: Copyright Statement
Posted by Chris Howe <cj...@yahoo.com>.
David,
Can you point me to where the copyright policy
addresses the contributors as being the copyright
holders for the OFBiz code instead of ASF? <inquiring
tone, not skepticism> I'm not seeing them in NOTICE
or LICENSE, but they are rather long :-)
TIA,
Chris
--- "David E. Jones" <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com> wrote:
>
> Chris,
>
> Have you read the ASF licensing and copyright policy
> documents? They
> address this, and in general this sort of thing in
> pretty good detail.
>
> Don't worry, you're not the first to notice this.
>
> As for copyright statements in other projects: there
> are certain
> cases where the files are not 100% licensed through
> the ASF, but are
> rather a combination of third party code and code
> developer for/
> through the ASF. Also not that while it is the
> responsibility of
> committers to monitor this sort of thing in patches
> and their own
> work, we do sometimes make mistakes. In general for
> the OFBiz code it
> has been thoroughly reviewed and such things well
> vetted through the
> incubation process.
>
> -David
>
>
> On Jan 14, 2007, at 8:45 PM, Chris Howe wrote:
>
> > While searching for more answers on how to make
> the
> > ofbiz-sandbox ASF friendly (both legally and ASF
> > administrative safe guard wise), I came across a
> > distinction between contributions to the Free
> Software
> > Foundation (FSF) and contributions to the ASF that
> I
> > think may have been inadequately addressed in
> OFBiz.
> > IANAL.
> >
> > Contributions to FSF require a copyright
> assignment,
> > while contributions to ASF generally, simply grant
> > license of use, modification, etc. This
> distinction
> > allows FSF software to carry the copyright notice
> > "Copyright YYYY The Free Software Foundation" by
> > itself.
> >
> > I looked at a couple of the other ASF TLPs and
> noticed
> > they were either missing a copyright notice in
> > individual files or in the case of Geronimo, had
> the
> > following:
> >
> > * Copyright 2004, 2005 The Apache Software
> Foundation
> > or its licensors, as applicable.
> >
> > I only looked at a couple files, so this is no
> where
> > near a comprehensive search. As it is now, nearly
> > every file in OFBiz says:
> >
> > Copyright 2001-2006 The Apache Software
> Foundation
> >
> > Which perhaps in and of itself is a copyright
> > violation. One for the beginning year (it may be
> > materially false as I wouldn't think a copyright
> can
> > be assigned retroactively) and two for the
> exclusion
> > of those who may actually have the copyright (the
> > author, etc). To my knowledge, there was no
> request
> > to the community for copyright assignment.
> >
> > I hope no one construes this as causing a fuss or
> as a
> > distraction. One of the reasons for the move to
> the
> > ASF for the project, as I understood it, was a
> > proactive step to avoid legal hassles. I just
> want us
> > to take advantage of that benefit and protect all
> of
> > our hard work.
> >
> > TIA for your feedback,
> > Chris
>
>
Re: Copyright Statement
Posted by "David E. Jones" <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
Chris,
Have you read the ASF licensing and copyright policy documents? They
address this, and in general this sort of thing in pretty good detail.
Don't worry, you're not the first to notice this.
As for copyright statements in other projects: there are certain
cases where the files are not 100% licensed through the ASF, but are
rather a combination of third party code and code developer for/
through the ASF. Also not that while it is the responsibility of
committers to monitor this sort of thing in patches and their own
work, we do sometimes make mistakes. In general for the OFBiz code it
has been thoroughly reviewed and such things well vetted through the
incubation process.
-David
On Jan 14, 2007, at 8:45 PM, Chris Howe wrote:
> While searching for more answers on how to make the
> ofbiz-sandbox ASF friendly (both legally and ASF
> administrative safe guard wise), I came across a
> distinction between contributions to the Free Software
> Foundation (FSF) and contributions to the ASF that I
> think may have been inadequately addressed in OFBiz.
> IANAL.
>
> Contributions to FSF require a copyright assignment,
> while contributions to ASF generally, simply grant
> license of use, modification, etc. This distinction
> allows FSF software to carry the copyright notice
> "Copyright YYYY The Free Software Foundation" by
> itself.
>
> I looked at a couple of the other ASF TLPs and noticed
> they were either missing a copyright notice in
> individual files or in the case of Geronimo, had the
> following:
>
> * Copyright 2004, 2005 The Apache Software Foundation
> or its licensors, as applicable.
>
> I only looked at a couple files, so this is no where
> near a comprehensive search. As it is now, nearly
> every file in OFBiz says:
>
> Copyright 2001-2006 The Apache Software Foundation
>
> Which perhaps in and of itself is a copyright
> violation. One for the beginning year (it may be
> materially false as I wouldn't think a copyright can
> be assigned retroactively) and two for the exclusion
> of those who may actually have the copyright (the
> author, etc). To my knowledge, there was no request
> to the community for copyright assignment.
>
> I hope no one construes this as causing a fuss or as a
> distraction. One of the reasons for the move to the
> ASF for the project, as I understood it, was a
> proactive step to avoid legal hassles. I just want us
> to take advantage of that benefit and protect all of
> our hard work.
>
> TIA for your feedback,
> Chris