You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com> on 2012/10/30 01:55:59 UTC
short file short notices
I have a very strong memory of a discussion, culminating in a policy,
to allow very short files to have an abbreviated AL notice to avoid
having the notice completely overwhelm the content. I cannot find this
via google. Did I dream it?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
RE: short file short notices
Posted by Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com>.
I'm always pleased to have an opportunity to agree with Craig Russell.
> So the copyright notice that we do require at or near the top of
> distributions is necessary and sufficient.
First a clarification: A copyright notice is *never* necessary. We won't go
to copyright jail for following current Apache practices or even by (gasp!)
leaving off the notices entirely.
As for the "sufficiency" of our policy, I would suggest that any object
(module, file, document, patch, data collection, entire program, etc.) that
we distribute as a separate entity ought to have an Apache copyright notice.
However, if as Craig suggests it is Apache practice to distribute only
entire programs rather than individual files, then of course he is right
about one copyright notice in the License file being sufficient for
informational purposes. But if individual objects are distributed by Apache,
then we ought to protect each of those individual objects with its own
copyright notice -- even though it isn't legally necessary.
/Larry
-----Original Message-----
From: Craig L Russell [mailto:craig.russell@oracle.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 7:33 PM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Cc: lrosen@rosenlaw.com
Subject: Re: short file short notices
Not surprisingly, Larry and I agree that
> Virtually everything we publish is "Copyright Apache Software
> Foundation."
But I maintain that a copyright notice on each file is misleading at best,
since we copyright the work as a whole. So the copyright notice that we do
require at or near the top of distributions is necessary and sufficient.
Craig
On Oct 31, 2012, at 7:26 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> Benson Margulies wrote:
>> Virtually nothing is 'Copyright Apache Software Foundation'.
>> We don't ask people for copyright assignment.
>
> The second sentence above is true, but the first sentence is not.
> The first sentence that you wrote is an example of an Apache urban
> legend that has crept into our FAQ and our practices. And the second
> sentence is simply irrelevant entirely.
>
> Virtually everything we publish is "Copyright Apache Software
> Foundation." The scope of our copyright may be rather narrow, in
> that others actually wrote much of the code. But like a magazine
> publisher, we can assert our copyright on the collections of
> software or documentation that we publish. That single Apache
> copyright notice also protects the underlying copyrights owned by
> our contributors. See 17 USC §404(a). In that context, the Apache
> copyright notice is a good thing we do for our contributors, not a
> bad thing.
>
> /Larry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Benson Margulies [mailto:bimargulies@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 6:47 PM
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org; lrosen@rosenlaw.com
> Subject: Re: short file short notices
>
> Only one problem. Virtually nothing is 'Copyright Apache Software
> Foundation'. We don't ask people for copyright assignment.
>
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 9:40 PM, Lawrence Rosen
> <lr...@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
>> David Crossley wrote:
>>> Could we also not have the Year if possible?
>>
>> When you publish with a copyright notice, insert the current year as
>> the "year of first publication". As an example of legal
>> foolishness, a
>> copyright notice isn't required, but if you have one the format is
>> generally prescribed by copyright law. See 17 USC §401.
>>
>> /Larry
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: David Crossley [mailto:crossley@apache.org]
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 6:26 PM
>> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
>> Subject: Re: short file short notices
>>
>> Lawrence Rosen wrote:
>>> Someone quoted:
>>>>
>>>> (Personally, I don't see why Craig's short header[1] stating simply
>>>> "Licensed under the terms of
>>>> http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0" does not suffice for
>>>> everything we do. But IANAL, etc...)
>>>
>>> Suffice for what purpose? No notices are *required* to comply with
>> copyright or licensing law, but for the purpose of notifying
>> recipients of the origin and availability of a file, I suggest the
>> following two-line minimum notice:
>>>
>>> Copyright (C) 2012 The Apache Software Foundation.
>>> Licensed under the terms of the
>> http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.
>>>
>>> Even that, though, is merely a nice-to-have, and so we shouldn't
>>> care
>>> that it is moved in some cases to the bottom rather than the top
>>> of a
>>> file. Or even omitted entirely for files shorter than 2 lines. :-)
>>
>> Thanks for the clear and complete answer Larry.
>> Please remove the fly-speck at the end of the URL.
>> Could we also not have the Year if possible?
>>
>> -David
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Benson Margulies [mailto:bimargulies@gmail.com]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 10:48 AM
>>> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: short file short notices
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Marvin Humphrey
>>> <ma...@rectangular.com>
>> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 8:28 AM, Craig L Russell
>>>> <cr...@oracle.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Well, there are quite a bit of how-to files that will need to
>>>>> change, and I think it would be good if there were a policy that
>> justifies it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Otherwise, we run the risk of getting some bit wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm +1 to make the change.
>>>>
>>>> If we finally get a "short header" approved, will that render this
>>>> "license footer" proposal obsolete? It seems sub-optimal to update
>>>> those how-to files once, then update them again.
>>>>
>>>> (Personally, I don't see why Craig's short header[1] stating simply
>>>> "Licensed under the terms of
>>>> http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0" does not suffice for
>>>> everything we do. But IANAL, etc...)
>>>
>>> As I understand how things happen in the legal arena around here ...
>>>
>>> To get a short header policy approved, someone has to say, "Here is
>>> my
>> practical problem on my TLP that would be solved by short headers
>> (and
>> is not solved by the rules that exclude some things from copyright
>> altogether)". Any number of us who think it would be a good thing in
>> theory, but who don't represent an actual practical problem, won't
>> cut it.
>>>
>>> So, the question is, do any of the authors of these JIRA fill the
>>> bill?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Marvin Humphrey
>>>>
>>>> [1] http://s.apache.org/WHK (link to comment on legal JIRA-124)
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
Craig L Russell
Architect, Oracle
http://db.apache.org/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@oracle.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: short file short notices
Posted by Craig L Russell <cr...@oracle.com>.
Not surprisingly, Larry and I agree that
> Virtually everything we publish is "Copyright Apache Software
> Foundation."
But I maintain that a copyright notice on each file is misleading at
best, since we copyright the work as a whole. So the copyright notice
that we do require at or near the top of distributions is necessary
and sufficient.
Craig
On Oct 31, 2012, at 7:26 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> Benson Margulies wrote:
>> Virtually nothing is 'Copyright Apache Software Foundation'.
>> We don't ask people for copyright assignment.
>
> The second sentence above is true, but the first sentence is not.
> The first sentence that you wrote is an example of an Apache urban
> legend that has crept into our FAQ and our practices. And the second
> sentence is simply irrelevant entirely.
>
> Virtually everything we publish is "Copyright Apache Software
> Foundation." The scope of our copyright may be rather narrow, in
> that others actually wrote much of the code. But like a magazine
> publisher, we can assert our copyright on the collections of
> software or documentation that we publish. That single Apache
> copyright notice also protects the underlying copyrights owned by
> our contributors. See 17 USC §404(a). In that context, the Apache
> copyright notice is a good thing we do for our contributors, not a
> bad thing.
>
> /Larry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Benson Margulies [mailto:bimargulies@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 6:47 PM
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org; lrosen@rosenlaw.com
> Subject: Re: short file short notices
>
> Only one problem. Virtually nothing is 'Copyright Apache Software
> Foundation'. We don't ask people for copyright assignment.
>
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 9:40 PM, Lawrence Rosen
> <lr...@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
>> David Crossley wrote:
>>> Could we also not have the Year if possible?
>>
>> When you publish with a copyright notice, insert the current year as
>> the "year of first publication". As an example of legal
>> foolishness, a
>> copyright notice isn't required, but if you have one the format is
>> generally prescribed by copyright law. See 17 USC §401.
>>
>> /Larry
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: David Crossley [mailto:crossley@apache.org]
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 6:26 PM
>> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
>> Subject: Re: short file short notices
>>
>> Lawrence Rosen wrote:
>>> Someone quoted:
>>>>
>>>> (Personally, I don't see why Craig's short header[1] stating simply
>>>> "Licensed under the terms of
>>>> http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0" does not suffice for
>>>> everything we do. But IANAL, etc...)
>>>
>>> Suffice for what purpose? No notices are *required* to comply with
>> copyright or licensing law, but for the purpose of notifying
>> recipients of the origin and availability of a file, I suggest the
>> following two-line minimum notice:
>>>
>>> Copyright (C) 2012 The Apache Software Foundation.
>>> Licensed under the terms of the
>> http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.
>>>
>>> Even that, though, is merely a nice-to-have, and so we shouldn't
>>> care
>>> that it is moved in some cases to the bottom rather than the top
>>> of a
>>> file. Or even omitted entirely for files shorter than 2 lines. :-)
>>
>> Thanks for the clear and complete answer Larry.
>> Please remove the fly-speck at the end of the URL.
>> Could we also not have the Year if possible?
>>
>> -David
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Benson Margulies [mailto:bimargulies@gmail.com]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 10:48 AM
>>> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: short file short notices
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Marvin Humphrey
>>> <ma...@rectangular.com>
>> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 8:28 AM, Craig L Russell
>>>> <cr...@oracle.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Well, there are quite a bit of how-to files that will need to
>>>>> change, and I think it would be good if there were a policy that
>> justifies it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Otherwise, we run the risk of getting some bit wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm +1 to make the change.
>>>>
>>>> If we finally get a "short header" approved, will that render this
>>>> "license footer" proposal obsolete? It seems sub-optimal to update
>>>> those how-to files once, then update them again.
>>>>
>>>> (Personally, I don't see why Craig's short header[1] stating simply
>>>> "Licensed under the terms of
>>>> http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0" does not suffice for
>>>> everything we do. But IANAL, etc...)
>>>
>>> As I understand how things happen in the legal arena around here ...
>>>
>>> To get a short header policy approved, someone has to say, "Here is
>>> my
>> practical problem on my TLP that would be solved by short headers
>> (and
>> is not solved by the rules that exclude some things from copyright
>> altogether)". Any number of us who think it would be a good thing in
>> theory, but who don't represent an actual practical problem, won't
>> cut it.
>>>
>>> So, the question is, do any of the authors of these JIRA fill the
>>> bill?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Marvin Humphrey
>>>>
>>>> [1] http://s.apache.org/WHK (link to comment on legal JIRA-124)
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
Craig L Russell
Architect, Oracle
http://db.apache.org/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@oracle.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
RE: short file short notices
Posted by Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com>.
Benson Margulies wrote:
> Virtually nothing is 'Copyright Apache Software Foundation'.
> We don't ask people for copyright assignment.
The second sentence above is true, but the first sentence is not. The first sentence that you wrote is an example of an Apache urban legend that has crept into our FAQ and our practices. And the second sentence is simply irrelevant entirely.
Virtually everything we publish is "Copyright Apache Software Foundation." The scope of our copyright may be rather narrow, in that others actually wrote much of the code. But like a magazine publisher, we can assert our copyright on the collections of software or documentation that we publish. That single Apache copyright notice also protects the underlying copyrights owned by our contributors. See 17 USC §404(a). In that context, the Apache copyright notice is a good thing we do for our contributors, not a bad thing.
/Larry
-----Original Message-----
From: Benson Margulies [mailto:bimargulies@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 6:47 PM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org; lrosen@rosenlaw.com
Subject: Re: short file short notices
Only one problem. Virtually nothing is 'Copyright Apache Software Foundation'. We don't ask people for copyright assignment.
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 9:40 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
> David Crossley wrote:
>> Could we also not have the Year if possible?
>
> When you publish with a copyright notice, insert the current year as
> the "year of first publication". As an example of legal foolishness, a
> copyright notice isn't required, but if you have one the format is
> generally prescribed by copyright law. See 17 USC §401.
>
> /Larry
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Crossley [mailto:crossley@apache.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 6:26 PM
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> Subject: Re: short file short notices
>
> Lawrence Rosen wrote:
>> Someone quoted:
>> >
>> > (Personally, I don't see why Craig's short header[1] stating simply
>> > "Licensed under the terms of
>> > http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0" does not suffice for
>> > everything we do. But IANAL, etc...)
>>
>> Suffice for what purpose? No notices are *required* to comply with
> copyright or licensing law, but for the purpose of notifying
> recipients of the origin and availability of a file, I suggest the
> following two-line minimum notice:
>>
>> Copyright (C) 2012 The Apache Software Foundation.
>> Licensed under the terms of the
> http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.
>>
>> Even that, though, is merely a nice-to-have, and so we shouldn't care
>> that it is moved in some cases to the bottom rather than the top of a
>> file. Or even omitted entirely for files shorter than 2 lines. :-)
>
> Thanks for the clear and complete answer Larry.
> Please remove the fly-speck at the end of the URL.
> Could we also not have the Year if possible?
>
> -David
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Benson Margulies [mailto:bimargulies@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 10:48 AM
>> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
>> Subject: Re: short file short notices
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Marvin Humphrey
>> <ma...@rectangular.com>
> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 8:28 AM, Craig L Russell
>> > <cr...@oracle.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Well, there are quite a bit of how-to files that will need to
>> >> change, and I think it would be good if there were a policy that
> justifies it.
>> >>
>> >> Otherwise, we run the risk of getting some bit wrong.
>> >>
>> >> I'm +1 to make the change.
>> >
>> > If we finally get a "short header" approved, will that render this
>> > "license footer" proposal obsolete? It seems sub-optimal to update
>> > those how-to files once, then update them again.
>> >
>> > (Personally, I don't see why Craig's short header[1] stating simply
>> > "Licensed under the terms of
>> > http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0" does not suffice for
>> > everything we do. But IANAL, etc...)
>>
>> As I understand how things happen in the legal arena around here ...
>>
>> To get a short header policy approved, someone has to say, "Here is
>> my
> practical problem on my TLP that would be solved by short headers (and
> is not solved by the rules that exclude some things from copyright
> altogether)". Any number of us who think it would be a good thing in
> theory, but who don't represent an actual practical problem, won't cut it.
>>
>> So, the question is, do any of the authors of these JIRA fill the bill?
>>
>> >
>> > Marvin Humphrey
>> >
>> > [1] http://s.apache.org/WHK (link to comment on legal JIRA-124)
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: short file short notices
Posted by Craig L Russell <cr...@oracle.com>.
On Oct 31, 2012, at 6:46 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> Only one problem. Virtually nothing is 'Copyright Apache Software
> Foundation'. We don't ask people for copyright assignment.
I'm sure Larry will comment, but
Apache do copyright the work as a whole. We do not accept copyright
assignments, but what we ship (releases) is copyright Apache.
Please see http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice for
more information.
Craig
>
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 9:40 PM, Lawrence Rosen
> <lr...@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
>> David Crossley wrote:
>>> Could we also not have the Year if possible?
>>
>> When you publish with a copyright notice, insert the current year
>> as the
>> "year of first publication". As an example of legal foolishness, a
>> copyright
>> notice isn't required, but if you have one the format is generally
>> prescribed by copyright law. See 17 USC §401.
>>
>> /Larry
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: David Crossley [mailto:crossley@apache.org]
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 6:26 PM
>> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
>> Subject: Re: short file short notices
>>
>> Lawrence Rosen wrote:
>>> Someone quoted:
>>>>
>>>> (Personally, I don't see why Craig's short header[1] stating simply
>>>> "Licensed under the terms of
>>>> http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0" does not suffice for
>>>> everything we do. But IANAL, etc...)
>>>
>>> Suffice for what purpose? No notices are *required* to comply with
>> copyright or licensing law, but for the purpose of notifying
>> recipients of
>> the origin and availability of a file, I suggest the following two-
>> line
>> minimum notice:
>>>
>>> Copyright (C) 2012 The Apache Software Foundation.
>>> Licensed under the terms of the
>> http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.
>>>
>>> Even that, though, is merely a nice-to-have, and so we shouldn't
>>> care
>>> that it is moved in some cases to the bottom rather than the top
>>> of a
>>> file. Or even omitted entirely for files shorter than 2 lines. :-)
>>
>> Thanks for the clear and complete answer Larry.
>> Please remove the fly-speck at the end of the URL.
>> Could we also not have the Year if possible?
>>
>> -David
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Benson Margulies [mailto:bimargulies@gmail.com]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 10:48 AM
>>> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: short file short notices
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Marvin Humphrey <marvin@rectangular.com
>>> >
>> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 8:28 AM, Craig L Russell
>>>> <cr...@oracle.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Well, there are quite a bit of how-to files that will need to
>>>>> change, and I think it would be good if there were a policy that
>> justifies it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Otherwise, we run the risk of getting some bit wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm +1 to make the change.
>>>>
>>>> If we finally get a "short header" approved, will that render this
>>>> "license footer" proposal obsolete? It seems sub-optimal to update
>>>> those how-to files once, then update them again.
>>>>
>>>> (Personally, I don't see why Craig's short header[1] stating simply
>>>> "Licensed under the terms of
>>>> http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0" does not suffice for
>>>> everything we do. But IANAL, etc...)
>>>
>>> As I understand how things happen in the legal arena around here ...
>>>
>>> To get a short header policy approved, someone has to say, "Here
>>> is my
>> practical problem on my TLP that would be solved by short headers
>> (and is
>> not solved by the rules that exclude some things from copyright
>> altogether)". Any number of us who think it would be a good thing
>> in theory,
>> but who don't represent an actual practical problem, won't cut it.
>>>
>>> So, the question is, do any of the authors of these JIRA fill the
>>> bill?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Marvin Humphrey
>>>>
>>>> [1] http://s.apache.org/WHK (link to comment on legal JIRA-124)
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
Craig L Russell
Architect, Oracle
http://db.apache.org/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@oracle.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: short file short notices
Posted by Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>.
Only one problem. Virtually nothing is 'Copyright Apache Software
Foundation'. We don't ask people for copyright assignment.
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 9:40 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
> David Crossley wrote:
>> Could we also not have the Year if possible?
>
> When you publish with a copyright notice, insert the current year as the
> "year of first publication". As an example of legal foolishness, a copyright
> notice isn't required, but if you have one the format is generally
> prescribed by copyright law. See 17 USC §401.
>
> /Larry
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Crossley [mailto:crossley@apache.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 6:26 PM
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> Subject: Re: short file short notices
>
> Lawrence Rosen wrote:
>> Someone quoted:
>> >
>> > (Personally, I don't see why Craig's short header[1] stating simply
>> > "Licensed under the terms of
>> > http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0" does not suffice for
>> > everything we do. But IANAL, etc...)
>>
>> Suffice for what purpose? No notices are *required* to comply with
> copyright or licensing law, but for the purpose of notifying recipients of
> the origin and availability of a file, I suggest the following two-line
> minimum notice:
>>
>> Copyright (C) 2012 The Apache Software Foundation.
>> Licensed under the terms of the
> http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.
>>
>> Even that, though, is merely a nice-to-have, and so we shouldn't care
>> that it is moved in some cases to the bottom rather than the top of a
>> file. Or even omitted entirely for files shorter than 2 lines. :-)
>
> Thanks for the clear and complete answer Larry.
> Please remove the fly-speck at the end of the URL.
> Could we also not have the Year if possible?
>
> -David
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Benson Margulies [mailto:bimargulies@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 10:48 AM
>> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
>> Subject: Re: short file short notices
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>
> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 8:28 AM, Craig L Russell
>> > <cr...@oracle.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Well, there are quite a bit of how-to files that will need to
>> >> change, and I think it would be good if there were a policy that
> justifies it.
>> >>
>> >> Otherwise, we run the risk of getting some bit wrong.
>> >>
>> >> I'm +1 to make the change.
>> >
>> > If we finally get a "short header" approved, will that render this
>> > "license footer" proposal obsolete? It seems sub-optimal to update
>> > those how-to files once, then update them again.
>> >
>> > (Personally, I don't see why Craig's short header[1] stating simply
>> > "Licensed under the terms of
>> > http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0" does not suffice for
>> > everything we do. But IANAL, etc...)
>>
>> As I understand how things happen in the legal arena around here ...
>>
>> To get a short header policy approved, someone has to say, "Here is my
> practical problem on my TLP that would be solved by short headers (and is
> not solved by the rules that exclude some things from copyright
> altogether)". Any number of us who think it would be a good thing in theory,
> but who don't represent an actual practical problem, won't cut it.
>>
>> So, the question is, do any of the authors of these JIRA fill the bill?
>>
>> >
>> > Marvin Humphrey
>> >
>> > [1] http://s.apache.org/WHK (link to comment on legal JIRA-124)
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
RE: short file short notices
Posted by Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com>.
David Crossley wrote:
> Could we also not have the Year if possible?
When you publish with a copyright notice, insert the current year as the
"year of first publication". As an example of legal foolishness, a copyright
notice isn't required, but if you have one the format is generally
prescribed by copyright law. See 17 USC §401.
/Larry
-----Original Message-----
From: David Crossley [mailto:crossley@apache.org]
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 6:26 PM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Subject: Re: short file short notices
Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> Someone quoted:
> >
> > (Personally, I don't see why Craig's short header[1] stating simply
> > "Licensed under the terms of
> > http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0" does not suffice for
> > everything we do. But IANAL, etc...)
>
> Suffice for what purpose? No notices are *required* to comply with
copyright or licensing law, but for the purpose of notifying recipients of
the origin and availability of a file, I suggest the following two-line
minimum notice:
>
> Copyright (C) 2012 The Apache Software Foundation.
> Licensed under the terms of the
http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.
>
> Even that, though, is merely a nice-to-have, and so we shouldn't care
> that it is moved in some cases to the bottom rather than the top of a
> file. Or even omitted entirely for files shorter than 2 lines. :-)
Thanks for the clear and complete answer Larry.
Please remove the fly-speck at the end of the URL.
Could we also not have the Year if possible?
-David
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Benson Margulies [mailto:bimargulies@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 10:48 AM
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> Subject: Re: short file short notices
>
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>
wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 8:28 AM, Craig L Russell
> > <cr...@oracle.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Well, there are quite a bit of how-to files that will need to
> >> change, and I think it would be good if there were a policy that
justifies it.
> >>
> >> Otherwise, we run the risk of getting some bit wrong.
> >>
> >> I'm +1 to make the change.
> >
> > If we finally get a "short header" approved, will that render this
> > "license footer" proposal obsolete? It seems sub-optimal to update
> > those how-to files once, then update them again.
> >
> > (Personally, I don't see why Craig's short header[1] stating simply
> > "Licensed under the terms of
> > http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0" does not suffice for
> > everything we do. But IANAL, etc...)
>
> As I understand how things happen in the legal arena around here ...
>
> To get a short header policy approved, someone has to say, "Here is my
practical problem on my TLP that would be solved by short headers (and is
not solved by the rules that exclude some things from copyright
altogether)". Any number of us who think it would be a good thing in theory,
but who don't represent an actual practical problem, won't cut it.
>
> So, the question is, do any of the authors of these JIRA fill the bill?
>
> >
> > Marvin Humphrey
> >
> > [1] http://s.apache.org/WHK (link to comment on legal JIRA-124)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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: short file short notices
Posted by Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>.
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 7:12 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
> Craig Russell wrote:
>> For many years, Apache have not put copyright notices into each file.
>
> So what?
I'm dismayed -- it was not my intention to reopen the copyright notification
can of worms.
> I answered the question as I believe it should be answered. I don't give
> much credit to past Apache practices in this regard.
Here are some links for the benefit of those who may wish to review:
http://markmail.org/message/ipbolanasvfvk6tr
http://markmail.org/message/elncbqwzfwesaobo
http://www.apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2004/board_minutes_2004_11_14.txt
Also, Members may wish to peruse board@a.o in the months leading up to that
November 2004 resolution.
> Of course, I stand
> ready to be corrected by an actual attorney or by anyone who can point to an
> authority other than some Apache FAQ.
>
> If there is an Apache *policy* not to include copyright notices, I'd
> appreciate hearing a justification for that other than merely "I don't
> wanna...."
It seems that achieving consensus on the current language was incredibly
laborious and painful. Being a fool, I have my own amateurish suspicions that
improvements are possible, but whatever I might write now is a drop in a lake
of ink already spilled.
Therefore, I withdraw my objection to the license-footer-with-header-pointer
solution and offer a +1 instead. It's an awkward approach, but if we can't
come up with short header language without relitigating the copyright
notification issue, it's better than nothing.
Marvin Humphrey
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
RE: short file short notices
Posted by Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com>.
Benson, I cry foul! You have entirely misrepresented the issue here and my response.
> As a matter of policy, we tell individual authors not to add notices asserting
> their individual copyright.
> ...
> This is settled, established, and documented policy, and it is inappropriate
> for your to blithely post the incorrect notion that copyrights pass to the
> foundation, since the ICLA does not assign them -- unless you are clearly
> making a proposal to change that policy.
I did not once in this thread suggest that copyrights pass to the foundation, nor did I suggest that contributors add notices to their contributions. I spoke only, exclusively, and specifically about these two (2) notices:
> Copyright (C) 2012 The Apache Software Foundation.
> Licensed under the terms of the http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
There was nothing inappropriate or blithe about my answer to the question posed here initially, which I quote directly from your very own 10/29 email:
> I have a very strong memory of a discussion, culminating in a policy,
> to allow very short files to have an abbreviated AL notice to avoid
> having the notice completely overwhelm the content. I cannot find
> this via google. Did I dream it?
I cannot comment on your dreams but I can say with authority that, given 17 USC 401 and 404(a), the two line notice I suggested, while not necessary, is sufficient for short files. That notice doesn't "completely overwhelm the content." I recommend that Apache adopt that as policy if it isn't already policy.
/Larry
Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482
Office: 707-485-1242
-----Original Message-----
From: Benson Margulies [mailto:bimargulies@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2012 3:38 AM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Subject: Re: short file short notices
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 6:10 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1 November 2012 02:26, Craig L Russell <cr...@oracle.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Oct 31, 2012, at 7:12 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
>>
>>> Craig Russell wrote:
>>>>
>>>> For many years, Apache have not put copyright notices into each file.
>>>
>>>
>>> So what?
>>>
>>> I answered the question as I believe it should be answered. I don't
>>> give much credit to past Apache practices in this regard. Of course,
>>> I stand ready to be corrected by an actual attorney or by anyone who
>>> can point to an authority other than some Apache FAQ.
>>>
>>> If there is an Apache *policy* not to include copyright notices, I'd
>>> appreciate hearing a justification for that other than merely "I
>>> don't wanna...."
Individual authors retain their individual copyright, and license their work to the foundation. As a matter of policy, we tell individual authors not to add notices asserting their individual copyright. I don't think this is a legal matter, but rather a matter of organizational style. We don't want to worry about maintain the inevitably growing list of authors, or worry about who has made a change large enough to make a derivative work that can be copyrighted, and who has merely made a tweak.
This is settled, established, and documented policy, and it is inappropriate for your to blithely post the incorrect notion that copyrights pass to the foundation, since the ICLA does not assign them
-- unless you are clearly making a proposal to change that policy.
>>
>>
>> We don't copyright each file. We copyright the work as a whole (is
>> this the right legal term?) and require the copyright notice appear
>> in the LICENSE
>
> Surely LICENSE should be NOTICE ?
>
>> file at or near the top of the distribution.
>>
>> IANAL but welcome your response.
>>
>> Craig
>>
>> P.S. Did you read http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html ??? Really?
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> /Larry
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Craig L Russell [mailto:craig.russell@oracle.com]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 6:59 PM
>>> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
>>> Cc: lrosen@rosenlaw.com
>>> Subject: Re: short file short notices
>>>
>>> Dear Larry,
>>>
>>> Please.
>>>
>>> Please.
>>>
>>> Please.
>>>
>>> Read this: http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
>>>
>>> For many years, Apache have not put copyright notices into each file.
>>>
>>> Later,
>>>
>>> Craig
>>>
>>> On Oct 31, 2012, at 1:26 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
>>>
>>>> Someone quoted:
>>>>>
>>>>> (Personally, I don't see why Craig's short header[1] stating
>>>>> simply "Licensed under the terms of
>>>>> http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0" does not suffice for
>>>>> everything we do. But IANAL, etc...)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Suffice for what purpose? No notices are *required* to comply with
>>>> copyright or licensing law, but for the purpose of notifying
>>>> recipients of the origin and availability of a file, I suggest the
>>>> following two-line minimum notice:
>>>>
>>>> Copyright (C) 2012 The Apache Software Foundation.
>>>> Licensed under the terms of the
>>>> http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
>>>> .
>>>>
>>>> Even that, though, is merely a nice-to-have, and so we shouldn't
>>>> care that it is moved in some cases to the bottom rather than the
>>>> top of a file. Or even omitted entirely for files shorter than 2
>>>> lines. :-)
>>>>
>>>> /Larry
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Benson Margulies [mailto:bimargulies@gmail.com]
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 10:48 AM
>>>> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
>>>> Subject: Re: short file short notices
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Marvin Humphrey
>>>> <marvin@rectangular.com
>>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 8:28 AM, Craig L Russell
>>>>> <cr...@oracle.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, there are quite a bit of how-to files that will need to
>>>>>> change, and I think it would be good if there were a policy that
>>>>>> justifies it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Otherwise, we run the risk of getting some bit wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm +1 to make the change.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If we finally get a "short header" approved, will that render this
>>>>> "license footer" proposal obsolete? It seems sub-optimal to
>>>>> update those how-to files once, then update them again.
>>>>>
>>>>> (Personally, I don't see why Craig's short header[1] stating
>>>>> simply "Licensed under the terms of
>>>>> http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0" does not suffice for
>>>>> everything we do. But IANAL, etc...)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As I understand how things happen in the legal arena around here ...
>>>>
>>>> To get a short header policy approved, someone has to say, "Here is
>>>> my practical problem on my TLP that would be solved by short
>>>> headers (and is not solved by the rules that exclude some things
>>>> from copyright altogether)". Any number of us who think it would be
>>>> a good thing in theory, but who don't represent an actual practical
>>>> problem, won't cut it.
>>>>
>>>> So, the question is, do any of the authors of these JIRA fill the
>>>> bill?
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Marvin Humphrey
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] http://s.apache.org/WHK (link to comment on legal JIRA-124)
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> --- 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>>>
>>>
>>> Craig L Russell
>>> Architect, Oracle
>>> http://db.apache.org/jdo
>>> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@oracle.com P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>>>
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> - 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
>>>
>>
>> Craig L Russell
>> Architect, Oracle
>> http://db.apache.org/jdo
>> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@oracle.com P.S. A good JDO? O,
>> Gasp!
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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: short file short notices
Posted by Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 6:10 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1 November 2012 02:26, Craig L Russell <cr...@oracle.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Oct 31, 2012, at 7:12 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
>>
>>> Craig Russell wrote:
>>>>
>>>> For many years, Apache have not put copyright notices into each file.
>>>
>>>
>>> So what?
>>>
>>> I answered the question as I believe it should be answered. I don't give
>>> much credit to past Apache practices in this regard. Of course, I stand
>>> ready to be corrected by an actual attorney or by anyone who can point to
>>> an
>>> authority other than some Apache FAQ.
>>>
>>> If there is an Apache *policy* not to include copyright notices, I'd
>>> appreciate hearing a justification for that other than merely "I don't
>>> wanna...."
Individual authors retain their individual copyright, and license
their work to the foundation. As a matter of policy, we tell
individual authors not to add notices asserting their individual
copyright. I don't think this is a legal matter, but rather a matter
of organizational style. We don't want to worry about maintain the
inevitably growing list of authors, or worry about who has made a
change large enough to make a derivative work that can be copyrighted,
and who has merely made a tweak.
This is settled, established, and documented policy, and it is
inappropriate for your to blithely post the incorrect notion that
copyrights pass to the foundation, since the ICLA does not assign them
-- unless you are clearly making a proposal to change that policy.
>>
>>
>> We don't copyright each file. We copyright the work as a whole (is this the
>> right legal term?) and require the copyright notice appear in the LICENSE
>
> Surely LICENSE should be NOTICE ?
>
>> file at or near the top of the distribution.
>>
>> IANAL but welcome your response.
>>
>> Craig
>>
>> P.S. Did you read http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html ??? Really?
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> /Larry
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Craig L Russell [mailto:craig.russell@oracle.com]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 6:59 PM
>>> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
>>> Cc: lrosen@rosenlaw.com
>>> Subject: Re: short file short notices
>>>
>>> Dear Larry,
>>>
>>> Please.
>>>
>>> Please.
>>>
>>> Please.
>>>
>>> Read this: http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
>>>
>>> For many years, Apache have not put copyright notices into each file.
>>>
>>> Later,
>>>
>>> Craig
>>>
>>> On Oct 31, 2012, at 1:26 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
>>>
>>>> Someone quoted:
>>>>>
>>>>> (Personally, I don't see why Craig's short header[1] stating simply
>>>>> "Licensed under the terms of
>>>>> http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0" does not suffice for
>>>>> everything we do. But IANAL, etc...)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Suffice for what purpose? No notices are *required* to comply with
>>>> copyright or licensing law, but for the purpose of notifying
>>>> recipients of the origin and availability of a file, I suggest the
>>>> following two-line minimum notice:
>>>>
>>>> Copyright (C) 2012 The Apache Software Foundation.
>>>> Licensed under the terms of the
>>>> http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
>>>> .
>>>>
>>>> Even that, though, is merely a nice-to-have, and so we shouldn't care
>>>> that it is moved in some cases to the bottom rather than the top of a
>>>> file. Or even omitted entirely for files shorter than 2 lines. :-)
>>>>
>>>> /Larry
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Benson Margulies [mailto:bimargulies@gmail.com]
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 10:48 AM
>>>> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
>>>> Subject: Re: short file short notices
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Marvin Humphrey
>>>> <marvin@rectangular.com
>>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 8:28 AM, Craig L Russell
>>>>> <cr...@oracle.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, there are quite a bit of how-to files that will need to
>>>>>> change, and I think it would be good if there were a policy that
>>>>>> justifies it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Otherwise, we run the risk of getting some bit wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm +1 to make the change.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If we finally get a "short header" approved, will that render this
>>>>> "license footer" proposal obsolete? It seems sub-optimal to update
>>>>> those how-to files once, then update them again.
>>>>>
>>>>> (Personally, I don't see why Craig's short header[1] stating simply
>>>>> "Licensed under the terms of
>>>>> http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0" does not suffice for
>>>>> everything we do. But IANAL, etc...)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As I understand how things happen in the legal arena around here ...
>>>>
>>>> To get a short header policy approved, someone has to say, "Here is my
>>>> practical problem on my TLP that would be solved by short headers (and
>>>> is not solved by the rules that exclude some things from copyright
>>>> altogether)". Any number of us who think it would be a good thing in
>>>> theory, but who don't represent an actual practical problem, won't cut
>>>> it.
>>>>
>>>> So, the question is, do any of the authors of these JIRA fill the
>>>> bill?
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Marvin Humphrey
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] http://s.apache.org/WHK (link to comment on legal JIRA-124)
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>>>
>>>
>>> Craig L Russell
>>> Architect, Oracle
>>> http://db.apache.org/jdo
>>> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@oracle.com P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>> Craig L Russell
>> Architect, Oracle
>> http://db.apache.org/jdo
>> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@oracle.com
>> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: short file short notices
Posted by Craig L Russell <cr...@oracle.com>.
On Nov 1, 2012, at 3:10 AM, sebb wrote:
>> We don't copyright each file. We copyright the work as a whole (is
>> this the
>> right legal term?) and require the copyright notice appear in the
>> LICENSE
>
> Surely LICENSE should be NOTICE ?
>
Of course.
Craig
>
Craig L Russell
Architect, Oracle
http://db.apache.org/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@oracle.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: short file short notices
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 1 November 2012 02:26, Craig L Russell <cr...@oracle.com> wrote:
>
> On Oct 31, 2012, at 7:12 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
>
>> Craig Russell wrote:
>>>
>>> For many years, Apache have not put copyright notices into each file.
>>
>>
>> So what?
>>
>> I answered the question as I believe it should be answered. I don't give
>> much credit to past Apache practices in this regard. Of course, I stand
>> ready to be corrected by an actual attorney or by anyone who can point to
>> an
>> authority other than some Apache FAQ.
>>
>> If there is an Apache *policy* not to include copyright notices, I'd
>> appreciate hearing a justification for that other than merely "I don't
>> wanna...."
>
>
> We don't copyright each file. We copyright the work as a whole (is this the
> right legal term?) and require the copyright notice appear in the LICENSE
Surely LICENSE should be NOTICE ?
> file at or near the top of the distribution.
>
> IANAL but welcome your response.
>
> Craig
>
> P.S. Did you read http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html ??? Really?
>
>>
>>
>> /Larry
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Craig L Russell [mailto:craig.russell@oracle.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 6:59 PM
>> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
>> Cc: lrosen@rosenlaw.com
>> Subject: Re: short file short notices
>>
>> Dear Larry,
>>
>> Please.
>>
>> Please.
>>
>> Please.
>>
>> Read this: http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
>>
>> For many years, Apache have not put copyright notices into each file.
>>
>> Later,
>>
>> Craig
>>
>> On Oct 31, 2012, at 1:26 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
>>
>>> Someone quoted:
>>>>
>>>> (Personally, I don't see why Craig's short header[1] stating simply
>>>> "Licensed under the terms of
>>>> http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0" does not suffice for
>>>> everything we do. But IANAL, etc...)
>>>
>>>
>>> Suffice for what purpose? No notices are *required* to comply with
>>> copyright or licensing law, but for the purpose of notifying
>>> recipients of the origin and availability of a file, I suggest the
>>> following two-line minimum notice:
>>>
>>> Copyright (C) 2012 The Apache Software Foundation.
>>> Licensed under the terms of the
>>> http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
>>> .
>>>
>>> Even that, though, is merely a nice-to-have, and so we shouldn't care
>>> that it is moved in some cases to the bottom rather than the top of a
>>> file. Or even omitted entirely for files shorter than 2 lines. :-)
>>>
>>> /Larry
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Benson Margulies [mailto:bimargulies@gmail.com]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 10:48 AM
>>> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: short file short notices
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Marvin Humphrey
>>> <marvin@rectangular.com
>>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 8:28 AM, Craig L Russell
>>>> <cr...@oracle.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Well, there are quite a bit of how-to files that will need to
>>>>> change, and I think it would be good if there were a policy that
>>>>> justifies it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Otherwise, we run the risk of getting some bit wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm +1 to make the change.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If we finally get a "short header" approved, will that render this
>>>> "license footer" proposal obsolete? It seems sub-optimal to update
>>>> those how-to files once, then update them again.
>>>>
>>>> (Personally, I don't see why Craig's short header[1] stating simply
>>>> "Licensed under the terms of
>>>> http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0" does not suffice for
>>>> everything we do. But IANAL, etc...)
>>>
>>>
>>> As I understand how things happen in the legal arena around here ...
>>>
>>> To get a short header policy approved, someone has to say, "Here is my
>>> practical problem on my TLP that would be solved by short headers (and
>>> is not solved by the rules that exclude some things from copyright
>>> altogether)". Any number of us who think it would be a good thing in
>>> theory, but who don't represent an actual practical problem, won't cut
>>> it.
>>>
>>> So, the question is, do any of the authors of these JIRA fill the
>>> bill?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Marvin Humphrey
>>>>
>>>> [1] http://s.apache.org/WHK (link to comment on legal JIRA-124)
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>>
>>
>> Craig L Russell
>> Architect, Oracle
>> http://db.apache.org/jdo
>> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@oracle.com P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>>
>
> Craig L Russell
> Architect, Oracle
> http://db.apache.org/jdo
> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@oracle.com
> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: short file short notices
Posted by Craig L Russell <cr...@oracle.com>.
On Oct 31, 2012, at 7:12 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> Craig Russell wrote:
>> For many years, Apache have not put copyright notices into each file.
>
> So what?
>
> I answered the question as I believe it should be answered. I don't
> give
> much credit to past Apache practices in this regard. Of course, I
> stand
> ready to be corrected by an actual attorney or by anyone who can
> point to an
> authority other than some Apache FAQ.
>
> If there is an Apache *policy* not to include copyright notices, I'd
> appreciate hearing a justification for that other than merely "I don't
> wanna...."
We don't copyright each file. We copyright the work as a whole (is
this the right legal term?) and require the copyright notice appear in
the LICENSE file at or near the top of the distribution.
IANAL but welcome your response.
Craig
P.S. Did you read http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html ???
Really?
>
>
> /Larry
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Craig L Russell [mailto:craig.russell@oracle.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 6:59 PM
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> Cc: lrosen@rosenlaw.com
> Subject: Re: short file short notices
>
> Dear Larry,
>
> Please.
>
> Please.
>
> Please.
>
> Read this: http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
>
> For many years, Apache have not put copyright notices into each file.
>
> Later,
>
> Craig
>
> On Oct 31, 2012, at 1:26 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
>
>> Someone quoted:
>>> (Personally, I don't see why Craig's short header[1] stating simply
>>> "Licensed under the terms of
>>> http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0" does not suffice for
>>> everything we do. But IANAL, etc...)
>>
>> Suffice for what purpose? No notices are *required* to comply with
>> copyright or licensing law, but for the purpose of notifying
>> recipients of the origin and availability of a file, I suggest the
>> following two-line minimum notice:
>>
>> Copyright (C) 2012 The Apache Software Foundation.
>> Licensed under the terms of the
>> http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
>> .
>>
>> Even that, though, is merely a nice-to-have, and so we shouldn't care
>> that it is moved in some cases to the bottom rather than the top of a
>> file. Or even omitted entirely for files shorter than 2 lines. :-)
>>
>> /Larry
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Benson Margulies [mailto:bimargulies@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 10:48 AM
>> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
>> Subject: Re: short file short notices
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Marvin Humphrey
>> <marvin@rectangular.com
>>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 8:28 AM, Craig L Russell
>>> <cr...@oracle.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well, there are quite a bit of how-to files that will need to
>>>> change, and I think it would be good if there were a policy that
>>>> justifies it.
>>>>
>>>> Otherwise, we run the risk of getting some bit wrong.
>>>>
>>>> I'm +1 to make the change.
>>>
>>> If we finally get a "short header" approved, will that render this
>>> "license footer" proposal obsolete? It seems sub-optimal to update
>>> those how-to files once, then update them again.
>>>
>>> (Personally, I don't see why Craig's short header[1] stating simply
>>> "Licensed under the terms of
>>> http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0" does not suffice for
>>> everything we do. But IANAL, etc...)
>>
>> As I understand how things happen in the legal arena around here ...
>>
>> To get a short header policy approved, someone has to say, "Here is
>> my
>> practical problem on my TLP that would be solved by short headers
>> (and
>> is not solved by the rules that exclude some things from copyright
>> altogether)". Any number of us who think it would be a good thing in
>> theory, but who don't represent an actual practical problem, won't
>> cut
>> it.
>>
>> So, the question is, do any of the authors of these JIRA fill the
>> bill?
>>
>>>
>>> Marvin Humphrey
>>>
>>> [1] http://s.apache.org/WHK (link to comment on legal JIRA-124)
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>
>
> Craig L Russell
> Architect, Oracle
> http://db.apache.org/jdo
> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@oracle.com P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>
Craig L Russell
Architect, Oracle
http://db.apache.org/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@oracle.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: short file short notices
Posted by Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>.
Lawrence Rosen wrote on Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 19:12:32 -0700:
> Craig Russell wrote:
> > For many years, Apache have not put copyright notices into each file.
>
> So what?
>
So you're free to disagree with that in a civilised manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
RE: short file short notices
Posted by Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com>.
Craig Russell wrote:
> For many years, Apache have not put copyright notices into each file.
So what?
I answered the question as I believe it should be answered. I don't give
much credit to past Apache practices in this regard. Of course, I stand
ready to be corrected by an actual attorney or by anyone who can point to an
authority other than some Apache FAQ.
If there is an Apache *policy* not to include copyright notices, I'd
appreciate hearing a justification for that other than merely "I don't
wanna...."
/Larry
-----Original Message-----
From: Craig L Russell [mailto:craig.russell@oracle.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 6:59 PM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Cc: lrosen@rosenlaw.com
Subject: Re: short file short notices
Dear Larry,
Please.
Please.
Please.
Read this: http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
For many years, Apache have not put copyright notices into each file.
Later,
Craig
On Oct 31, 2012, at 1:26 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> Someone quoted:
>> (Personally, I don't see why Craig's short header[1] stating simply
>> "Licensed under the terms of
>> http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0" does not suffice for
>> everything we do. But IANAL, etc...)
>
> Suffice for what purpose? No notices are *required* to comply with
> copyright or licensing law, but for the purpose of notifying
> recipients of the origin and availability of a file, I suggest the
> following two-line minimum notice:
>
> Copyright (C) 2012 The Apache Software Foundation.
> Licensed under the terms of the
> http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
> .
>
> Even that, though, is merely a nice-to-have, and so we shouldn't care
> that it is moved in some cases to the bottom rather than the top of a
> file. Or even omitted entirely for files shorter than 2 lines. :-)
>
> /Larry
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Benson Margulies [mailto:bimargulies@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 10:48 AM
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> Subject: Re: short file short notices
>
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Marvin Humphrey
> <marvin@rectangular.com
> > wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 8:28 AM, Craig L Russell
>> <cr...@oracle.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Well, there are quite a bit of how-to files that will need to
>>> change, and I think it would be good if there were a policy that
>>> justifies it.
>>>
>>> Otherwise, we run the risk of getting some bit wrong.
>>>
>>> I'm +1 to make the change.
>>
>> If we finally get a "short header" approved, will that render this
>> "license footer" proposal obsolete? It seems sub-optimal to update
>> those how-to files once, then update them again.
>>
>> (Personally, I don't see why Craig's short header[1] stating simply
>> "Licensed under the terms of
>> http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0" does not suffice for
>> everything we do. But IANAL, etc...)
>
> As I understand how things happen in the legal arena around here ...
>
> To get a short header policy approved, someone has to say, "Here is my
> practical problem on my TLP that would be solved by short headers (and
> is not solved by the rules that exclude some things from copyright
> altogether)". Any number of us who think it would be a good thing in
> theory, but who don't represent an actual practical problem, won't cut
> it.
>
> So, the question is, do any of the authors of these JIRA fill the
> bill?
>
>>
>> Marvin Humphrey
>>
>> [1] http://s.apache.org/WHK (link to comment on legal JIRA-124)
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
Craig L Russell
Architect, Oracle
http://db.apache.org/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@oracle.com P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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: short file short notices
Posted by Craig L Russell <cr...@oracle.com>.
Dear Larry,
Please.
Please.
Please.
Read this: http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
For many years, Apache have not put copyright notices into each file.
Later,
Craig
On Oct 31, 2012, at 1:26 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> Someone quoted:
>> (Personally, I don't see why Craig's short header[1] stating simply
>> "Licensed under the terms of
>> http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0" does not suffice for
>> everything we do. But IANAL, etc...)
>
> Suffice for what purpose? No notices are *required* to comply with
> copyright or licensing law, but for the purpose of notifying
> recipients of the origin and availability of a file, I suggest the
> following two-line minimum notice:
>
> Copyright (C) 2012 The Apache Software Foundation.
> Licensed under the terms of the http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
> .
>
> Even that, though, is merely a nice-to-have, and so we shouldn't
> care that it is moved in some cases to the bottom rather than the
> top of a file. Or even omitted entirely for files shorter than 2
> lines. :-)
>
> /Larry
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Benson Margulies [mailto:bimargulies@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 10:48 AM
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> Subject: Re: short file short notices
>
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Marvin Humphrey <marvin@rectangular.com
> > wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 8:28 AM, Craig L Russell
>> <cr...@oracle.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Well, there are quite a bit of how-to files that will need to
>>> change,
>>> and I think it would be good if there were a policy that justifies
>>> it.
>>>
>>> Otherwise, we run the risk of getting some bit wrong.
>>>
>>> I'm +1 to make the change.
>>
>> If we finally get a "short header" approved, will that render this
>> "license footer" proposal obsolete? It seems sub-optimal to update
>> those how-to files once, then update them again.
>>
>> (Personally, I don't see why Craig's short header[1] stating simply
>> "Licensed under the terms of
>> http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0" does not suffice for
>> everything we do. But IANAL, etc...)
>
> As I understand how things happen in the legal arena around here ...
>
> To get a short header policy approved, someone has to say, "Here is
> my practical problem on my TLP that would be solved by short headers
> (and is not solved by the rules that exclude some things from
> copyright altogether)". Any number of us who think it would be a
> good thing in theory, but who don't represent an actual practical
> problem, won't cut it.
>
> So, the question is, do any of the authors of these JIRA fill the
> bill?
>
>>
>> Marvin Humphrey
>>
>> [1] http://s.apache.org/WHK (link to comment on legal JIRA-124)
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
Craig L Russell
Architect, Oracle
http://db.apache.org/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@oracle.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: short file short notices
Posted by David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>.
Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> Someone quoted:
> >
> > (Personally, I don't see why Craig's short header[1] stating simply
> > "Licensed under the terms of
> > http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0" does not suffice for
> > everything we do. But IANAL, etc...)
>
> Suffice for what purpose? No notices are *required* to comply with copyright or licensing law, but for the purpose of notifying recipients of the origin and availability of a file, I suggest the following two-line minimum notice:
>
> Copyright (C) 2012 The Apache Software Foundation.
> Licensed under the terms of the http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.
>
> Even that, though, is merely a nice-to-have, and so we shouldn't care that it is moved in some cases to the bottom rather than the top of a file. Or even omitted entirely for files shorter than 2 lines. :-)
Thanks for the clear and complete answer Larry.
Please remove the fly-speck at the end of the URL.
Could we also not have the Year if possible?
-David
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Benson Margulies [mailto:bimargulies@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 10:48 AM
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> Subject: Re: short file short notices
>
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 8:28 AM, Craig L Russell
> > <cr...@oracle.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Well, there are quite a bit of how-to files that will need to change,
> >> and I think it would be good if there were a policy that justifies it.
> >>
> >> Otherwise, we run the risk of getting some bit wrong.
> >>
> >> I'm +1 to make the change.
> >
> > If we finally get a "short header" approved, will that render this
> > "license footer" proposal obsolete? It seems sub-optimal to update
> > those how-to files once, then update them again.
> >
> > (Personally, I don't see why Craig's short header[1] stating simply
> > "Licensed under the terms of
> > http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0" does not suffice for
> > everything we do. But IANAL, etc...)
>
> As I understand how things happen in the legal arena around here ...
>
> To get a short header policy approved, someone has to say, "Here is my practical problem on my TLP that would be solved by short headers (and is not solved by the rules that exclude some things from copyright altogether)". Any number of us who think it would be a good thing in theory, but who don't represent an actual practical problem, won't cut it.
>
> So, the question is, do any of the authors of these JIRA fill the bill?
>
> >
> > Marvin Humphrey
> >
> > [1] http://s.apache.org/WHK (link to comment on legal JIRA-124)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
RE: short file short notices
Posted by Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com>.
Someone quoted:
> (Personally, I don't see why Craig's short header[1] stating simply
> "Licensed under the terms of
> http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0" does not suffice for
> everything we do. But IANAL, etc...)
Suffice for what purpose? No notices are *required* to comply with copyright or licensing law, but for the purpose of notifying recipients of the origin and availability of a file, I suggest the following two-line minimum notice:
Copyright (C) 2012 The Apache Software Foundation.
Licensed under the terms of the http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.
Even that, though, is merely a nice-to-have, and so we shouldn't care that it is moved in some cases to the bottom rather than the top of a file. Or even omitted entirely for files shorter than 2 lines. :-)
/Larry
-----Original Message-----
From: Benson Margulies [mailto:bimargulies@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 10:48 AM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Subject: Re: short file short notices
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 8:28 AM, Craig L Russell
> <cr...@oracle.com> wrote:
>
>> Well, there are quite a bit of how-to files that will need to change,
>> and I think it would be good if there were a policy that justifies it.
>>
>> Otherwise, we run the risk of getting some bit wrong.
>>
>> I'm +1 to make the change.
>
> If we finally get a "short header" approved, will that render this
> "license footer" proposal obsolete? It seems sub-optimal to update
> those how-to files once, then update them again.
>
> (Personally, I don't see why Craig's short header[1] stating simply
> "Licensed under the terms of
> http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0" does not suffice for
> everything we do. But IANAL, etc...)
As I understand how things happen in the legal arena around here ...
To get a short header policy approved, someone has to say, "Here is my practical problem on my TLP that would be solved by short headers (and is not solved by the rules that exclude some things from copyright altogether)". Any number of us who think it would be a good thing in theory, but who don't represent an actual practical problem, won't cut it.
So, the question is, do any of the authors of these JIRA fill the bill?
>
> Marvin Humphrey
>
> [1] http://s.apache.org/WHK (link to comment on legal JIRA-124)
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: short file short notices
Posted by Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Marvin Humphrey
<ma...@rectangular.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 8:28 AM, Craig L Russell
> <cr...@oracle.com> wrote:
>
>> Well, there are quite a bit of how-to files that will need to change, and I
>> think it would be good if there were a policy that justifies it.
>>
>> Otherwise, we run the risk of getting some bit wrong.
>>
>> I'm +1 to make the change.
>
> If we finally get a "short header" approved, will that render this "license
> footer" proposal obsolete? It seems sub-optimal to update those how-to files
> once, then update them again.
>
> (Personally, I don't see why Craig's short header[1] stating simply "Licensed
> under the terms of http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0" does not
> suffice for everything we do. But IANAL, etc...)
As I understand how things happen in the legal arena around here ...
To get a short header policy approved, someone has to say, "Here is my
practical problem on my TLP that would be solved by short headers (and
is not solved by the rules that exclude some things from copyright
altogether)". Any number of us who think it would be a good thing in
theory, but who don't represent an actual practical problem, won't cut
it.
So, the question is, do any of the authors of these JIRA fill the bill?
>
> Marvin Humphrey
>
> [1] http://s.apache.org/WHK (link to comment on legal JIRA-124)
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: short file short notices
Posted by Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>.
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 8:28 AM, Craig L Russell
<cr...@oracle.com> wrote:
> Well, there are quite a bit of how-to files that will need to change, and I
> think it would be good if there were a policy that justifies it.
>
> Otherwise, we run the risk of getting some bit wrong.
>
> I'm +1 to make the change.
If we finally get a "short header" approved, will that render this "license
footer" proposal obsolete? It seems sub-optimal to update those how-to files
once, then update them again.
(Personally, I don't see why Craig's short header[1] stating simply "Licensed
under the terms of http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0" does not
suffice for everything we do. But IANAL, etc...)
Marvin Humphrey
[1] http://s.apache.org/WHK (link to comment on legal JIRA-124)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: short file short notices
Posted by Craig L Russell <cr...@oracle.com>.
Hi Benson,
On Oct 31, 2012, at 7:59 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 10:54 AM, Patrick Mueller
> <pm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 4:26 AM, Jukka Zitting <jukka.zitting@gmail.com
>> >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Not exactly the same thing, but somewhat related discussion about
>>> using a license _footer_ instead of a header:
>>> http://markmail.org/message/65bgkplxu2ei6tj4
>>
>>
>> Just to chime in from a "trying out the footer license thing".
>> I've been
>> trying this out, for some non-Apache projects, using Jukka's
>> suggested:
>>
>> Such files could still start with a one-line comment like "//
>> Licensed
>> under the Apache License, Version 2.0. See footer for details." for
>> people
>> who expect to find license info at the beginning of a file.
>>
>> Works for me. Nice to move that wad of goo to the bottom, but
>> still have a
>> single line at the top.
>
> Would we really need a policy change to legitimize this?
Well, there are quite a bit of how-to files that will need to change,
and I think it would be good if there were a policy that justifies it.
Otherwise, we run the risk of getting some bit wrong.
I'm +1 to make the change.
Craig
>
>
>>
>> eg:
>>
>> https://github.com/pmuellr/tooltap/blob/master/lib/etc.js
>>
>> --
>> Patrick Mueller
>> http://muellerware.org
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
Craig L Russell
Architect, Oracle
http://db.apache.org/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@oracle.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: short file short notices
Posted by Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 10:54 AM, Patrick Mueller <pm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 4:26 AM, Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Not exactly the same thing, but somewhat related discussion about
>> using a license _footer_ instead of a header:
>> http://markmail.org/message/65bgkplxu2ei6tj4
>
>
> Just to chime in from a "trying out the footer license thing". I've been
> trying this out, for some non-Apache projects, using Jukka's suggested:
>
> Such files could still start with a one-line comment like "// Licensed
> under the Apache License, Version 2.0. See footer for details." for people
> who expect to find license info at the beginning of a file.
>
> Works for me. Nice to move that wad of goo to the bottom, but still have a
> single line at the top.
Would we really need a policy change to legitimize this?
>
> eg:
>
> https://github.com/pmuellr/tooltap/blob/master/lib/etc.js
>
> --
> Patrick Mueller
> http://muellerware.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: short file short notices
Posted by Patrick Mueller <pm...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 4:26 AM, Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Not exactly the same thing, but somewhat related discussion about
> using a license _footer_ instead of a header:
> http://markmail.org/message/65bgkplxu2ei6tj4
>
Just to chime in from a "trying out the footer license thing". I've been
trying this out, for some non-Apache projects, using Jukka's suggested:
Such files could still start with a one-line comment like "// Licensed
under the Apache License, Version 2.0. See footer for details." for people
who expect to find license info at the beginning of a file.
Works for me. Nice to move that wad of goo to the bottom, but still have a
single line at the top.
eg:
https://github.com/pmuellr/tooltap/blob/master/lib/etc.js
--
Patrick Mueller
http://muellerware.org
Re: short file short notices
Posted by Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 2:55 AM, Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have a very strong memory of a discussion, culminating in a policy,
> to allow very short files to have an abbreviated AL notice to avoid
> having the notice completely overwhelm the content.
Not exactly the same thing, but somewhat related discussion about
using a license _footer_ instead of a header:
http://markmail.org/message/65bgkplxu2ei6tj4
BR,
Jukka Zitting
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: short file short notices
Posted by Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>.
On 30/10/2012, at 11:55 AM, Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have a very strong memory of a discussion, culminating in a policy,
> to allow very short files to have an abbreviated AL notice to avoid
> having the notice completely overwhelm the content. I cannot find this
> via google. Did I dream it?
I can find these open:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-124
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-114
I originally thought you might be referring to these, though they were resolved in another way:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-146
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201209.mbox/%3CCA%2BY%2B4462usX2Zjwu%2B7_jfZVfYz-ZN%3DDhsQuDwPMNZ-hbX--quA%40mail.gmail.com%3E
My understanding is that none have resulted in a change to the policy (and certainly nothing that has been added to http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html).
Cheers,
Brett
--
Brett Porter
brett@apache.org
http://brettporter.wordpress.com/
http://au.linkedin.com/in/brettporter
http://twitter.com/brettporter
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: short file short notices
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
On Oct 29, 2012, at 8:55 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> I have a very strong memory of a discussion, culminating in a policy,
> to allow very short files to have an abbreviated AL notice to avoid
> having the notice completely overwhelm the content. I cannot find this
> via google. Did I dream it?
Partly. As Brett has pointed out, there's been some discussion and a few Jira's created, but no policy changes.
My read -- there's general agreement that this could be done, but there hasn't been enough interest/critical mass to get things moving towards a policy change. If people feel this would be a good thing to do, then this would be a good discussion thread to voice your opinion.
--kevan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org