You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by Avi Kivity <av...@scylladb.com> on 2016/12/26 15:31:56 UTC
Question about the "prominent notice" about me changing the file
Hello,
The Apache License, Version 2.0, states:
You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices
stating that You changed the files; and
My question is: does a "Copyright 2016 Me" line near the top of the file
qualify as a prominent notice that I changed it? Since I am writing it
anyway, it would save me an inane "Modified by Me" line.
Thanks, Avi
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Question about the "prominent notice" about me changing the file
Posted by Avi Kivity <av...@scylladb.com>.
That's a given, but does not answer my question, which was: does a
copyright assertion count as a prominent notice requirement of ALv2?
On 12/28/2016 04:03 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> You only have copyright on the parts that you changed, not the
> entire work as a whole.
>
>> On Dec 26, 2016, at 10:31 AM, Avi Kivity <av...@scylladb.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> The Apache License, Version 2.0, states:
>>
>> You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices stating that You changed the files; and
>>
>> My question is: does a "Copyright 2016 Me" line near the top of the file qualify as a prominent notice that I changed it? Since I am writing it anyway, it would save me an inane "Modified by Me" line.
>>
>> Thanks, Avi
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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: Question about the "prominent notice" about me changing the file
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
You only have copyright on the parts that you changed, not the
entire work as a whole.
> On Dec 26, 2016, at 10:31 AM, Avi Kivity <av...@scylladb.com> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> The Apache License, Version 2.0, states:
>
> You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices stating that You changed the files; and
>
> My question is: does a "Copyright 2016 Me" line near the top of the file qualify as a prominent notice that I changed it? Since I am writing it anyway, it would save me an inane "Modified by Me" line.
>
> Thanks, Avi
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: Question about the "prominent notice" about me changing the file
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 6:53 AM, Avi Kivity <av...@scylladb.com> wrote:
>> What is the license that you make an overall bundle (your changes +
>> original ALv2
>> code) available under?
>
>
> I am making my bundle available under two separate licenses (not
> concurrently), GNU AGPL v3+, and a commercial license.
Ok. So basically on the open source side the entire bundle will be licensed
under AGPL v3+ which will make the overall source bundle permanently
available for anybody to see.
No issue there, but what I was trying to get to is that given the potential
scrutiny you may well decide to be a nice open source citizen (and not just
do the very minimum required of you by the ALv2 terms).
This is the framing of the rest of my suggestions (and you should realize that
all you're getting on this thread are suggestions -- the final advice can only
be given to you by your attorney).
>> At any rate, even though IANAL, I believe that at a very minimum you
>> should
>> be saying "Portions Copyright 2016 Me" line near the top of the file".
>>
>> As a reader of a file that has a structure of:
>>
>> /* ALv2
>> *
>> * Copyright 2016 Me
>> */
>>
>> would make me believe that the entire file is (c) you which may or may not
>> be the case.
>
>
> In Linux, people just assert their copyright, and never explicitly mention
> that it is just a portion they are copyrighting. See 0515e5999 for an
> example; so I think it's clear there can be multiple authors.
Correct. But see above. All I'm saying is -- the easier you make it for me
as a casual reader to get the information I need as quickly as possible the
better it is. Here's an example of a reverse situation:
https://github.com/apache/kudu/blob/master/thirdparty/README.txt
I like giving it because I truly feel that Kudu folks went above and beyond
what a permissive license (such as BSD/MIT would require) to be incorporated
into the overall ALv2 licensed code base: not only did they separate ALv2
changes into patches they apply on top of external code bases but they
also provided a README and LICENSE for me to feel really comfortable
about ingesting their work.
Of course, I can only use this example as an inspiration, a carrot if you will.
I think you'll be well within your right using the very minimum (c) notice.
Ultimately the choice is yours.
Thanks,
Roman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Question about the "prominent notice" about me changing the file
Posted by Avi Kivity <av...@scylladb.com>.
On 12/27/2016 08:22 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> Hi Avi ;-)
:-)
>
> On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 7:31 AM, Avi Kivity <av...@scylladb.com> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> The Apache License, Version 2.0, states:
>>
>> You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices stating
>> that You changed the files; and
>>
>> My question is: does a "Copyright 2016 Me" line near the top of the file
>> qualify as a prominent notice that I changed it? Since I am writing it
>> anyway, it would save me an inane "Modified by Me" line.
> What is the license that you make an overall bundle (your changes +
> original ALv2
> code) available under?
I am making my bundle available under two separate licenses (not
concurrently), GNU AGPL v3+, and a commercial license.
I would this to apply not only to the bundle, but also to individual
changes within the modified files.
>
> At any rate, even though IANAL, I believe that at a very minimum you should
> be saying "Portions Copyright 2016 Me" line near the top of the file".
>
> As a reader of a file that has a structure of:
>
> /* ALv2
> *
> * Copyright 2016 Me
> */
>
> would make me believe that the entire file is (c) you which may or may not
> be the case.
In Linux, people just assert their copyright, and never explicitly
mention that it is just a portion they are copyrighting. See 0515e5999
for an example; so I think it's clear there can be multiple authors.
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: Question about the "prominent notice" about me changing the file
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
Hi Avi ;-)
On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 7:31 AM, Avi Kivity <av...@scylladb.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> The Apache License, Version 2.0, states:
>
> You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices stating
> that You changed the files; and
>
> My question is: does a "Copyright 2016 Me" line near the top of the file
> qualify as a prominent notice that I changed it? Since I am writing it
> anyway, it would save me an inane "Modified by Me" line.
What is the license that you make an overall bundle (your changes +
original ALv2
code) available under?
At any rate, even though IANAL, I believe that at a very minimum you should
be saying "Portions Copyright 2016 Me" line near the top of the file".
As a reader of a file that has a structure of:
/* ALv2
*
* Copyright 2016 Me
*/
would make me believe that the entire file is (c) you which may or may not
be the case.
Thanks,
Roman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Question about the "prominent notice" about me changing the file
Posted by Avi Kivity <av...@scylladb.com>.
Well, in these legal matters it's the chain of reasoning that matters,
and I'm afraid I'm more confused now than before I started the thread.
On 12/27/2016 06:27 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
> That is a great chain of reasoning for the same result. Go for it.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Dec 27, 2016, at 6:52, Avi Kivity <av...@scylladb.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Since the blurb begins
>>
>>
>> * Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one
>> * or more contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file
>>
>> which is a copyright notice, it seems to me that I must preserve it.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: Question about the "prominent notice" about me changing the file
Posted by Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>.
That is a great chain of reasoning for the same result. Go for it.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Dec 27, 2016, at 6:52, Avi Kivity <av...@scylladb.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Since the blurb begins
>
>
> * Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one
> * or more contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file
>
> which is a copyright notice, it seems to me that I must preserve it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Question about the "prominent notice" about me changing the file
Posted by Avi Kivity <av...@scylladb.com>.
On 12/27/2016 04:42 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 12:37 AM, Avi Kivity <avi@scylladb.com
> <ma...@scylladb.com>> wrote:
>
>> Speaking as a reader of code, I like to see the history when
>> necessary.
>
> Isn't that stored in the version control system?
>
>
> Not necessarily in the version control system that your modified code
> is sitting in.
>
> I meant it would be nice to have an explicit pointer back to the
> Apache project. A URL.
Oh, but there's no point in repeating it in every file. I have it once
in the top-level directory.
>
>
> But that doesn't answer my question. As far as I can tell, I'm
> not allowed to remove the license blurb and replace it with my
> license. Is that incorrect?
>
>
> You are allowed to relicense the software.
>
> You are also required to prominently mark files that you have changed.
> The easiest way to do so is to preserve the old header and add your own.
I don't see how preserving the old header prominently marks it as modified.
From the license:
You must retain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works that
You distribute, all copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution
notices from the Source form of the Work, excluding those notices that
do not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works; and
Since the blurb begins
* Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one
* or more contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file
which is a copyright notice, it seems to me that I must preserve it.
>
>> My IDE hides the details until I need them so 1 line or 50 makes
>> no difference to me as a reader. The Apache header is pretty
>> short anyway.
>>
>> I also like to know where I can find the previous versions of the
>> code.
>>
>
> Use the version control system for that project?
>
>
> As I mentioned, the version control system for the code I am looking
> at may not have the necessary history.
Well, that doesn't justify keeping random blurbs in the code. Look at
the right version control system if you're interested in history.
Re: Question about the "prominent notice" about me changing the file
Posted by Avi Kivity <av...@scylladb.com>.
Thanks, this is very helpful, more below.
On 12/28/2016 04:06 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
> I am not a lawyer and even though a lawyer told me the following, it is
> not legal advice:
>
> Headers don't change the licensing or copyright
> of the source code, they are only convenience
> sign posts as to the licensing or copyright.
>
> If I understand the question, it is about the minimum attribution that
> Apache requires in derivative works.
Not really, the question of whether I'm allowed to remove the ALv2 blurb
arose in conversion but was not my original question. My own opinion is
that I'm not allowed to do it, because it is this blurb that gives me
the rights to copy and modify the code.
My question was, rephrased:
"Right now, for every file that I modify, I am adding three separate
items of information:
1. A "modified by me" line, as required by ALv2, the "prominent
notice"?
2. A "copyright me" line, to assert my own rights
3. A new license for the combined work.
Does item 2 (my own copyright) satisfy the "prominent notice"
requirement? It just feels inane to have two such similar lines."
> IMO, that question can be thought of
> in two ways:
>
> 1) What would be too minimal that the ASF would get upset and ask you to
> do more.
> 2) What would be too minimal that customers may not use your software
> because they aren't sure it is derived from Apache software?
>
> IMO, you should have the ASF header in every file, and the NOTICE that
> came with the original ASF source. Then it would never be considered too
> minimal and customers would see what they expect. The ASF header can be
> before or after your copyright/license. I can't image the ASF getting
> upset about that or customers getting confused by that.
That's what I expect and what I do. I don't have any wish to remove the
Apache blurb.
However, I would like to make it clear that the modified file is not
licensed under ALv2, just the original. Is there an accepted way to do
this?
>
> Also, IMO, you cannot change the licensing and copyright of the lines of
> code that you don't touch, but you can use a different license on the
> lines you do touch. Hence, except for substantial rewrites you'll have
> lots of ASF code in your source.
We are talking about a substantial rewrite. There is a lot more
non-Apache code than Apache code in this project.
> In this world of GitHub where it is easy for folks to grab single files, I
> like the idea of headers in each file. I cannot offer any opinion on
> whether the ASF would get on your case if you don't do that.
That was not my concern; I'm not trying to reduce attribution and am not
worried about this at all.
> My 2 cents,
> -Alex
Thanks!
> On 12/27/16, 3:29 PM, "Stian Soiland-Reyes" <st...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> I think a minimal "prominent notification" could just be to start the
>> file with
>>
>>> Modifications (c) 2012-2016 Foo inc
>>
>> I believe what Ted hinted at is it would be legal to add contributions
>> of a different license - the ASF license is not "viral".
>>
>> So for instance take an ASF-licensed source code file from the Apache
>> httpd server, retain its current headers, and then copy-paste a
>> function from the GPL 3 licensed Bash source code, and add a GPL 3
>> license header on top of the ASF header (as required by the license of
>> the GPLed code).
>>
>> (Word of warning for those that for some reason think the above sounds
>> like a great idea - it has to be GPL 3, or GPL 2 with upgrade clause,
>> see https://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html )
>>
>>
>> You would then just also have to include a notice that you have
>> modified the source - if you are mixing licenses like above, then I
>> would suggest a bit more detailed than the minimal Modifications line,
>> but go into detail of what you have added from where, for instance:
>>
>>> This code was adapted from
>>> Apache Bar 1.4.1 http://bar.apache.org/
>>> with additional modifications by Foo inc, including:
>>>
>>> - Sort algorithm fooSort() adapted from GNU Bash
>>> - Optimized memory management in allocate()
>>>
>>> This modified source code is distributed under the
>>> GNU Public License (GPL) 3.0 license or newer.
>>> ... (insert whatever GNU requires here)
>>>
>>> The license and attribution for the original Apache Bar code is:
>>>
>>> Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more
>>> contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file distributed with
>>> ...
>>
>> If you are just making new ASF-licensed code it should be much
>> simpler, and the one-liner "Modifications (c)" is should be enough,
>> as downstream would be able to use your modifications the same way as
> >from ASF, and you have carried a prominent notice - top of the file!
>> (Hidden as an in-line comment on line 1281 would NOT be prominent.
>> Directly below the ASF license would also be promiment - but use some
>> newlines!)
>>
>>
>> Technically your contributions are not be "licensed to ASF" before you
>> actually contribute it back to ASF (e.g. "intentionally submitted for
>> inclusion") , so you may want to say the "Modifications (c) Foo Inc"
>> **above** the ASF license header blurb to not confuse matters.
>>
>>
>> I think as long as you comply with the license terms, you are not
>> required to distribute ASF-licensed software under the ASF license,
>> just to *include* the license and the current attributions. If the
>> attributions contain mentions of the ASF license (as is the case of
>> our own software), then downstream users would be able to hunt around
>> and find the original "ASF-pure" code if they so wishes. Best software
>> engineering practice is of course to give them the the right URLs, not
>> to obscure deliberately.
>>
>> Note that ASF projects have a NOTICE file which content you MUST
>> propagate along with the licensed code - our NOTICE files should
>> always include the name of the ASF project and thus to some extent
>> prevents provenance obscurication. You may want to add your own
>> attribution to NOTICE for your modifications - however that is not
>> sufficient for non-ASF modifications to satisfy the clause to "cause
>> any modified files to carry prominent notices" - that has to be added
>> to each modified file. (Unmodified files don't need to be changed).
>>
>>
>> As it's late, I won't delve into if changing the "package " line in
>> Java source code can be classified as a modification :-)
>>
>> On 27 December 2016 at 18:58, Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 6:42 AM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 12:37 AM, Avi Kivity <av...@scylladb.com> wrote:
>>>>> Speaking as a reader of code, I like to see the history when
>>>>> necessary.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Isn't that stored in the version control system?
>>>>
>>>> Not necessarily in the version control system that your modified code
>>>> is
>>>> sitting in.
>>>>
>>>> I meant it would be nice to have an explicit pointer back to the Apache
>>>> project. A URL.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But that doesn't answer my question. As far as I can tell, I'm not
>>>>> allowed to remove the license blurb and replace it with my license.
>>>>> Is that
>>>>> incorrect?
>>>>
>>>> You are allowed to relicense the software.
>>>
>>> ??
>>>
>>> I'm confused by your replies here Ted; I have the same understanding as
>>> Avi
>>> and am confused by the notion of 'previous license' that you're
>>> suggesting.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> You are also required to prominently mark files that you have changed.
>>>> The
>>>> easiest way to do so is to preserve the old header and add your own.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> My IDE hides the details until I need them so 1 line or 50 makes no
>>>>> difference to me as a reader. The Apache header is pretty short
>>>>> anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>> I also like to know where I can find the previous versions of the
>>>>> code.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Use the version control system for that project?
>>>>
>>>> As I mentioned, the version control system for the code I am looking at
>>>> may not have the necessary history.
>>>
>>> I took your original reply to mean you wanted to indicate where the
>>> software
>>> originally came from. So less about the version control and more about
>>> the
>>> link to somewhere else. Given the name of the original software is in
>>> the
>>> NOTICE, and one has to retain the contents of the NOTICE, I think the
>>> connection is still there to dig into the history.
>>>
>>> Hen
>>
>>
>> --
>> Stian Soiland-Reyes
>> http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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: Question about the "prominent notice" about me changing the file
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
I am not a lawyer and even though a lawyer told me the following, it is
not legal advice:
Headers don't change the licensing or copyright
of the source code, they are only convenience
sign posts as to the licensing or copyright.
If I understand the question, it is about the minimum attribution that
Apache requires in derivative works. IMO, that question can be thought of
in two ways:
1) What would be too minimal that the ASF would get upset and ask you to
do more.
2) What would be too minimal that customers may not use your software
because they aren't sure it is derived from Apache software?
IMO, you should have the ASF header in every file, and the NOTICE that
came with the original ASF source. Then it would never be considered too
minimal and customers would see what they expect. The ASF header can be
before or after your copyright/license. I can't image the ASF getting
upset about that or customers getting confused by that.
Also, IMO, you cannot change the licensing and copyright of the lines of
code that you don't touch, but you can use a different license on the
lines you do touch. Hence, except for substantial rewrites you'll have
lots of ASF code in your source.
In this world of GitHub where it is easy for folks to grab single files, I
like the idea of headers in each file. I cannot offer any opinion on
whether the ASF would get on your case if you don't do that.
My 2 cents,
-Alex
On 12/27/16, 3:29 PM, "Stian Soiland-Reyes" <st...@apache.org> wrote:
>I think a minimal "prominent notification" could just be to start the
>file with
>
>> Modifications (c) 2012-2016 Foo inc
>
>
>I believe what Ted hinted at is it would be legal to add contributions
>of a different license - the ASF license is not "viral".
>
>So for instance take an ASF-licensed source code file from the Apache
>httpd server, retain its current headers, and then copy-paste a
>function from the GPL 3 licensed Bash source code, and add a GPL 3
>license header on top of the ASF header (as required by the license of
>the GPLed code).
>
>(Word of warning for those that for some reason think the above sounds
>like a great idea - it has to be GPL 3, or GPL 2 with upgrade clause,
>see https://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html )
>
>
>You would then just also have to include a notice that you have
>modified the source - if you are mixing licenses like above, then I
>would suggest a bit more detailed than the minimal Modifications line,
>but go into detail of what you have added from where, for instance:
>
>> This code was adapted from
>> Apache Bar 1.4.1 http://bar.apache.org/
>> with additional modifications by Foo inc, including:
>>
>> - Sort algorithm fooSort() adapted from GNU Bash
>> - Optimized memory management in allocate()
>>
>> This modified source code is distributed under the
>> GNU Public License (GPL) 3.0 license or newer.
>> ... (insert whatever GNU requires here)
>>
>> The license and attribution for the original Apache Bar code is:
>>
>> Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more
>> contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file distributed with
>> ...
>
>
>If you are just making new ASF-licensed code it should be much
>simpler, and the one-liner "Modifications (c)" is should be enough,
>as downstream would be able to use your modifications the same way as
>from ASF, and you have carried a prominent notice - top of the file!
>(Hidden as an in-line comment on line 1281 would NOT be prominent.
>Directly below the ASF license would also be promiment - but use some
>newlines!)
>
>
>Technically your contributions are not be "licensed to ASF" before you
>actually contribute it back to ASF (e.g. "intentionally submitted for
>inclusion") , so you may want to say the "Modifications (c) Foo Inc"
>**above** the ASF license header blurb to not confuse matters.
>
>
>I think as long as you comply with the license terms, you are not
>required to distribute ASF-licensed software under the ASF license,
>just to *include* the license and the current attributions. If the
>attributions contain mentions of the ASF license (as is the case of
>our own software), then downstream users would be able to hunt around
>and find the original "ASF-pure" code if they so wishes. Best software
>engineering practice is of course to give them the the right URLs, not
>to obscure deliberately.
>
>Note that ASF projects have a NOTICE file which content you MUST
>propagate along with the licensed code - our NOTICE files should
>always include the name of the ASF project and thus to some extent
>prevents provenance obscurication. You may want to add your own
>attribution to NOTICE for your modifications - however that is not
>sufficient for non-ASF modifications to satisfy the clause to "cause
>any modified files to carry prominent notices" - that has to be added
>to each modified file. (Unmodified files don't need to be changed).
>
>
>As it's late, I won't delve into if changing the "package " line in
>Java source code can be classified as a modification :-)
>
>On 27 December 2016 at 18:58, Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 6:42 AM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 12:37 AM, Avi Kivity <av...@scylladb.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Speaking as a reader of code, I like to see the history when
>>>>necessary.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Isn't that stored in the version control system?
>>>
>>>
>>> Not necessarily in the version control system that your modified code
>>>is
>>> sitting in.
>>>
>>> I meant it would be nice to have an explicit pointer back to the Apache
>>> project. A URL.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But that doesn't answer my question. As far as I can tell, I'm not
>>>> allowed to remove the license blurb and replace it with my license.
>>>>Is that
>>>> incorrect?
>>>
>>>
>>> You are allowed to relicense the software.
>>
>>
>> ??
>>
>> I'm confused by your replies here Ted; I have the same understanding as
>>Avi
>> and am confused by the notion of 'previous license' that you're
>>suggesting.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You are also required to prominently mark files that you have changed.
>>>The
>>> easiest way to do so is to preserve the old header and add your own.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My IDE hides the details until I need them so 1 line or 50 makes no
>>>> difference to me as a reader. The Apache header is pretty short
>>>>anyway.
>>>>
>>>> I also like to know where I can find the previous versions of the
>>>>code.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Use the version control system for that project?
>>>
>>>
>>> As I mentioned, the version control system for the code I am looking at
>>> may not have the necessary history.
>>
>>
>> I took your original reply to mean you wanted to indicate where the
>>software
>> originally came from. So less about the version control and more about
>>the
>> link to somewhere else. Given the name of the original software is in
>>the
>> NOTICE, and one has to retain the contents of the NOTICE, I think the
>> connection is still there to dig into the history.
>>
>> Hen
>
>
>
>--
>Stian Soiland-Reyes
>http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>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: Question about the "prominent notice" about me changing the file
Posted by Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org>.
I think a minimal "prominent notification" could just be to start the file with
> Modifications (c) 2012-2016 Foo inc
I believe what Ted hinted at is it would be legal to add contributions
of a different license - the ASF license is not "viral".
So for instance take an ASF-licensed source code file from the Apache
httpd server, retain its current headers, and then copy-paste a
function from the GPL 3 licensed Bash source code, and add a GPL 3
license header on top of the ASF header (as required by the license of
the GPLed code).
(Word of warning for those that for some reason think the above sounds
like a great idea - it has to be GPL 3, or GPL 2 with upgrade clause,
see https://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html )
You would then just also have to include a notice that you have
modified the source - if you are mixing licenses like above, then I
would suggest a bit more detailed than the minimal Modifications line,
but go into detail of what you have added from where, for instance:
> This code was adapted from
> Apache Bar 1.4.1 http://bar.apache.org/
> with additional modifications by Foo inc, including:
>
> - Sort algorithm fooSort() adapted from GNU Bash
> - Optimized memory management in allocate()
>
> This modified source code is distributed under the
> GNU Public License (GPL) 3.0 license or newer.
> ... (insert whatever GNU requires here)
>
> The license and attribution for the original Apache Bar code is:
>
> Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more
> contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file distributed with
> ...
If you are just making new ASF-licensed code it should be much
simpler, and the one-liner "Modifications (c)" is should be enough,
as downstream would be able to use your modifications the same way as
from ASF, and you have carried a prominent notice - top of the file!
(Hidden as an in-line comment on line 1281 would NOT be prominent.
Directly below the ASF license would also be promiment - but use some
newlines!)
Technically your contributions are not be "licensed to ASF" before you
actually contribute it back to ASF (e.g. "intentionally submitted for
inclusion") , so you may want to say the "Modifications (c) Foo Inc"
**above** the ASF license header blurb to not confuse matters.
I think as long as you comply with the license terms, you are not
required to distribute ASF-licensed software under the ASF license,
just to *include* the license and the current attributions. If the
attributions contain mentions of the ASF license (as is the case of
our own software), then downstream users would be able to hunt around
and find the original "ASF-pure" code if they so wishes. Best software
engineering practice is of course to give them the the right URLs, not
to obscure deliberately.
Note that ASF projects have a NOTICE file which content you MUST
propagate along with the licensed code - our NOTICE files should
always include the name of the ASF project and thus to some extent
prevents provenance obscurication. You may want to add your own
attribution to NOTICE for your modifications - however that is not
sufficient for non-ASF modifications to satisfy the clause to "cause
any modified files to carry prominent notices" - that has to be added
to each modified file. (Unmodified files don't need to be changed).
As it's late, I won't delve into if changing the "package " line in
Java source code can be classified as a modification :-)
On 27 December 2016 at 18:58, Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 6:42 AM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 12:37 AM, Avi Kivity <av...@scylladb.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Speaking as a reader of code, I like to see the history when necessary.
>>>
>>>
>>> Isn't that stored in the version control system?
>>
>>
>> Not necessarily in the version control system that your modified code is
>> sitting in.
>>
>> I meant it would be nice to have an explicit pointer back to the Apache
>> project. A URL.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> But that doesn't answer my question. As far as I can tell, I'm not
>>> allowed to remove the license blurb and replace it with my license. Is that
>>> incorrect?
>>
>>
>> You are allowed to relicense the software.
>
>
> ??
>
> I'm confused by your replies here Ted; I have the same understanding as Avi
> and am confused by the notion of 'previous license' that you're suggesting.
>
>
>>
>>
>> You are also required to prominently mark files that you have changed. The
>> easiest way to do so is to preserve the old header and add your own.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> My IDE hides the details until I need them so 1 line or 50 makes no
>>> difference to me as a reader. The Apache header is pretty short anyway.
>>>
>>> I also like to know where I can find the previous versions of the code.
>>>
>>>
>>> Use the version control system for that project?
>>
>>
>> As I mentioned, the version control system for the code I am looking at
>> may not have the necessary history.
>
>
> I took your original reply to mean you wanted to indicate where the software
> originally came from. So less about the version control and more about the
> link to somewhere else. Given the name of the original software is in the
> NOTICE, and one has to retain the contents of the NOTICE, I think the
> connection is still there to dig into the history.
>
> Hen
--
Stian Soiland-Reyes
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Question about the "prominent notice" about me changing the file
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 6:42 AM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 12:37 AM, Avi Kivity <av...@scylladb.com> wrote:
>
>> Speaking as a reader of code, I like to see the history when necessary.
>>
>>
>> Isn't that stored in the version control system?
>>
>
> Not necessarily in the version control system that your modified code is
> sitting in.
>
> I meant it would be nice to have an explicit pointer back to the Apache
> project. A URL.
>
>
>>
>>
>> But that doesn't answer my question. As far as I can tell, I'm not
>> allowed to remove the license blurb and replace it with my license. Is
>> that incorrect?
>>
>
> You are allowed to relicense the software.
>
??
I'm confused by your replies here Ted; I have the same understanding as Avi
and am confused by the notion of 'previous license' that you're suggesting.
>
> You are also required to prominently mark files that you have changed. The
> easiest way to do so is to preserve the old header and add your own.
>
>
>>
>> My IDE hides the details until I need them so 1 line or 50 makes no
>> difference to me as a reader. The Apache header is pretty short anyway.
>>
>> I also like to know where I can find the previous versions of the code.
>>
>>
>> Use the version control system for that project?
>>
>
> As I mentioned, the version control system for the code I am looking at
> may not have the necessary history.
>
I took your original reply to mean you wanted to indicate where the
software originally came from. So less about the version control and more
about the link to somewhere else. Given the name of the original software
is in the NOTICE, and one has to retain the contents of the NOTICE, I think
the connection is still there to dig into the history.
Hen
Re: Question about the "prominent notice" about me changing the file
Posted by Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 12:37 AM, Avi Kivity <av...@scylladb.com> wrote:
> Speaking as a reader of code, I like to see the history when necessary.
>
>
> Isn't that stored in the version control system?
>
Not necessarily in the version control system that your modified code is
sitting in.
I meant it would be nice to have an explicit pointer back to the Apache
project. A URL.
>
>
> But that doesn't answer my question. As far as I can tell, I'm not
> allowed to remove the license blurb and replace it with my license. Is
> that incorrect?
>
You are allowed to relicense the software.
You are also required to prominently mark files that you have changed. The
easiest way to do so is to preserve the old header and add your own.
>
> My IDE hides the details until I need them so 1 line or 50 makes no
> difference to me as a reader. The Apache header is pretty short anyway.
>
> I also like to know where I can find the previous versions of the code.
>
>
> Use the version control system for that project?
>
As I mentioned, the version control system for the code I am looking at may
not have the necessary history.
Re: Question about the "prominent notice" about me changing the file
Posted by Avi Kivity <av...@scylladb.com>.
On 12/27/2016 02:47 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Avi Kivity wrote on Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 10:37:50 +0200:
>> But that doesn't answer my question. As far as I can tell, I'm not allowed
>> to remove the license blurb and replace it with my license.
> That's my reading of �4(c) too. Why would you want to remove the ALv2
> blurb?
I don't and never said I did.
>
> (IANAL)
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: Question about the "prominent notice" about me changing the file
Posted by Daniel Shahaf <da...@apache.org>.
Avi Kivity wrote on Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 10:37:50 +0200:
> But that doesn't answer my question. As far as I can tell, I'm not allowed
> to remove the license blurb and replace it with my license.
That's my reading of �4(c) too. Why would you want to remove the ALv2
blurb?
(IANAL)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Question about the "prominent notice" about me changing the file
Posted by Avi Kivity <av...@scylladb.com>.
On 12/27/2016 12:34 AM, Ted Dunning wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 1:34 PM, Avi Kivity <avi@scylladb.com
> <ma...@scylladb.com>> wrote:
>
>> b) mention that the file was previously under the Apache license
>>
>
> I can't just remove the Apache license, can I? Right now, files
> that I modify contain both the original license and the license
> for my modifications.
>
>
> Speaking as a reader of code, I like to see the history when necessary.
Isn't that stored in the version control system?
But that doesn't answer my question. As far as I can tell, I'm not
allowed to remove the license blurb and replace it with my license. Is
that incorrect?
> My IDE hides the details until I need them so 1 line or 50 makes no
> difference to me as a reader. The Apache header is pretty short anyway.
>
> I also like to know where I can find the previous versions of the code.
>
Use the version control system for that project?
Re: Question about the "prominent notice" about me changing the file
Posted by Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 1:34 PM, Avi Kivity <av...@scylladb.com> wrote:
> b) mention that the file was previously under the Apache license
>
>
> I can't just remove the Apache license, can I? Right now, files that I
> modify contain both the original license and the license for my
> modifications.
>
Speaking as a reader of code, I like to see the history when necessary. My
IDE hides the details until I need them so 1 line or 50 makes no difference
to me as a reader. The Apache header is pretty short anyway.
I also like to know where I can find the previous versions of the code.
Re: Question about the "prominent notice" about me changing the file
Posted by Avi Kivity <av...@scylladb.com>.
On 12/26/2016 11:18 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 7:31 AM, Avi Kivity <avi@scylladb.com
> <ma...@scylladb.com>> wrote:
>
> My question is: does a "Copyright 2016 Me" line near the top of
> the file qualify as a prominent notice that I changed it? Since I
> am writing it anyway, it would save me an inane "Modified by Me" line.
>
>
> Sounds right.
>
Thanks.
> While you are specifying the copyright, it would be nice if you
>
> a) specify what license you are releasing your code under
>
Well, of course I do.
> b) mention that the file was previously under the Apache license
>
I can't just remove the Apache license, can I? Right now, files that I
modify contain both the original license and the license for my
modifications.
Re: Question about the "prominent notice" about me changing the file
Posted by Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 7:31 AM, Avi Kivity <av...@scylladb.com> wrote:
> My question is: does a "Copyright 2016 Me" line near the top of the file
> qualify as a prominent notice that I changed it? Since I am writing it
> anyway, it would save me an inane "Modified by Me" line.
>
Sounds right.
While you are specifying the copyright, it would be nice if you
a) specify what license you are releasing your code under
b) mention that the file was previously under the Apache license