You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com> on 2009/08/05 17:00:55 UTC
RE: Should included public domain source code be tagged with ASF headers and be under ALv2
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
IANAL, but AFAIUI, once someone says "this pile of work is under
public domain", then under most statues the author has no claims to
the work, and therefor anyone can take it and do whatever they want
with it, including claiming ownership, copyright and put it under a
license.
Nope. They can't claim ownership or copyright or put it under a license.
They can, however, copy it, create derivative works (and claim copyright to
that!), and distribute those collective and derivative works under a
license. Note that:
The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the
material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the
preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive
right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent
of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or
subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material. 17 USC
103(b).
Niclas Hedhman also wrote:
So, for Harmony, I would just suggest that you bring it in as if
someone in the community have developed it, but retain a friendly
attribution to Doug and a track record of how it arrived here (just in
case someone else claim we stole it).
That part is good advice.
/Larry
Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482
Office: 707-485-1242 Cell: 707-478-8932
Apache Software Foundation, member and counsel (www.apache.org)
Stanford University, Instructor in Law
Author, Open Source Licensing: Software Freedom and Intellectual Property
Law (Prentice Hall 2004)
-----Original Message-----
From: hedhman@gmail.com [mailto:hedhman@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Niclas
Hedhman
Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 9:43 PM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Subject: Re: Should included public domain source code be tagged with ASF
headers and be under ALv2
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 9:13 AM, Nathan Beyer<nd...@apache.org> wrote:
> Well, we've finally got the SCM all worked out and the code is being
> managed and the changes and updates are happening. The headers have
> not been changed yet [3]. Is it appropriate for us to change the
> headers and effectively license the files under ALv2? Or should we
> just leave them alone?
IANAL, but AFAIUI, once someone says "this pile of work is under
public domain", then under most statues the author has no claims to
the work, and therefor anyone can take it and do whatever they want
with it, including claiming ownership, copyright and put it under a
license.
So, for Harmony, I would just suggest that you bring it in as if
someone in the community have developed it, but retain a friendly
attribution to Doug and a track record of how it arrived here (just in
case someone else claim we stole it).
Cheers
--
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java
I live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er
I work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc
I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Should included public domain source code be tagged with ASF headers and be under ALv2
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
On Aug 5, 2009, at 10:23 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>
> Why can't law be like a computer program, complete with a test
> suite???
>
Because the law isn't written in a language where everything is
executed by a machine that interprets the language in only one way,
consistently, every time. Consider that the English language is filled
with words that have different meaning depending on the context in
which they are used, that may sound the same but are spelled various
ways, and that virtually every rule in the language has an exception.
If Java, C++ and other high level languages were based on such an
ambiguous construct every computer would need an AI engine just to
figure out what it was being told to do. Of course, I'm told that the
legal system has invented its own words with specific legal meanings
that us laymen don't understand to try to address that problem.
Personally, I think that is just an excuse to require us to hire
lawyers - I'm just kidding Larry - ;)
OTOH, even with languages like Java and C++, we mere mortals manage to
infuse our software with tons of faulty logic. So perhaps we do need
the AI engine to figure out what the programmer really intended to do
anyway.
By the way, I realize that this was really a rhetorical question, but
it really was fun to answer.
Ralph
Re: Should included public domain source code be tagged with ASF
headers and be under ALv2
Posted by "C. Bergström" <co...@osunix.org>.
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 11:00 PM, Lawrence Rosen<lr...@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
>
>
> ...
>
> Why can't law be like a computer program, complete with a test suite???
>
Some passionate people (names of projects excluded) feel you can feed a
license in on one end and get an answer on the other. This isn't really
how it all works in practice. From my perspective the test suit for law
is litigation and I'm thankful it's not more commonly used. When you're
used to rigid development models it's hard to adjust to thinking in a
different way.
./C
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Should included public domain source code be tagged with ASF
headers and be under ALv2
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 11:00 PM, Lawrence Rosen<lr...@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
> Nope. They can't claim ownership or copyright or put it under a license.
This is contrary to previous discussion I have had with legally
educated people, who said (then) that publishing under Apache License
is "safer" than publishing it as "public domain" (which is what I
wanted to do with my own stuff). One of the argument brought forward
was that once it is in the public domain, anybody could do anything to
it, including claiming ownership of the "entire work derived", not
only the part that they "added", and that defending my own right of
using it would be a harder legal struggle than if I'd stick to the
Apache License...
Why can't law be like a computer program, complete with a test suite???
Cheers
--
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java
I live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er
I work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc
I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Should included public domain source code be tagged with ASF
headers and be under ALv2
Posted by Nathan Beyer <nd...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 10:00 AM, Lawrence Rosen<lr...@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
> Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>
> IANAL, but AFAIUI, once someone says "this pile of work is under
>
> public domain", then under most statues the author has no claims to
>
> the work, and therefor anyone can take it and do whatever they want
>
> with it, including claiming ownership, copyright and put it under a
>
> license.
>
>
>
> Nope. They can't claim ownership or copyright or put it under a license.
> They can, however, copy it, create derivative works (and claim copyright to
> that!), and distribute those collective and derivative works under a
> license. Note that:
>
>
>
> The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the
> material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the
> preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive
> right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent
> of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or
> subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material. 17 USC
> 103(b).
>
Does this mean that files which are unchanged should stay as-is and
that files which do get changed should have the standard ASF header
prefixed?
It'd be a bit easier to just change all of the files, but if it's not
appropriate to do so until it's modified and becomes derivative, then
that's fine.
>
>
> Niclas Hedhman also wrote:
>
>
>
> So, for Harmony, I would just suggest that you bring it in as if
>
> someone in the community have developed it, but retain a friendly
>
> attribution to Doug and a track record of how it arrived here (just in
>
> case someone else claim we stole it).
>
>
>
> That part is good advice.
>
Yeah, we definitely need to do a better job of attributing the code.
Each file does have a header noting the original source, so there is
tracing of the origin.
-Nathan
>
>
> /Larry
>
>
>
> Lawrence Rosen
>
> Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
>
> 3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482
>
> Office: 707-485-1242 Cell: 707-478-8932
>
> Apache Software Foundation, member and counsel (www.apache.org)
>
> Stanford University, Instructor in Law
>
> Author, Open Source Licensing: Software Freedom and Intellectual Property
> Law (Prentice Hall 2004)
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: hedhman@gmail.com [mailto:hedhman@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Niclas
> Hedhman
> Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 9:43 PM
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> Subject: Re: Should included public domain source code be tagged with ASF
> headers and be under ALv2
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 9:13 AM, Nathan Beyer<nd...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>> Well, we've finally got the SCM all worked out and the code is being
>
>> managed and the changes and updates are happening. The headers have
>
>> not been changed yet [3]. Is it appropriate for us to change the
>
>> headers and effectively license the files under ALv2? Or should we
>
>> just leave them alone?
>
>
>
> IANAL, but AFAIUI, once someone says "this pile of work is under
>
> public domain", then under most statues the author has no claims to
>
> the work, and therefor anyone can take it and do whatever they want
>
> with it, including claiming ownership, copyright and put it under a
>
> license.
>
>
>
> So, for Harmony, I would just suggest that you bring it in as if
>
> someone in the community have developed it, but retain a friendly
>
> attribution to Doug and a track record of how it arrived here (just in
>
> case someone else claim we stole it).
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
> --
>
> Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
>
> http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java
>
>
>
> I live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er
>
> I work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc
>
> I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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: Should included public domain source code be tagged with ASF
headers and be under ALv2
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <rd...@apache.org>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
>> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>>> Craig L Russell wrote:
>>>> This reminds me of a small issue with the NOTICE file.
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to recommend that Doug's "contribution" be attributed in the
>>>> NOTICE file, just as we do for more tightly-managed contributions under
>>>> permissive licenses. But as written in the policy [1], the NOTICE file
>>>> is just for copyrights and *required* notices from third parties.
>>>>
>>>> Should we consider changing the policy to allow attribution of public
>>>> domain works incorporated into Apache projects?
>>> Not in LICENSE;
>> really?
>
> Really; LICENSE is for required LICENSE's. Public Domain is not a license,
> by definition it's the non-existence, non-requirement of a license.
this sounds great in theory but causes difficulties in practice
the LICENSE is structured as AL2.0 with exceptions for third party
sources. unless all third party sources are explicitly listed, the
LICENSE might reasonably read as claiming that all source not listed is
apache copyright and licensed under the AL2.0. an explicit disclaimer
for public domain source makes it clear that these implicit licensing
claims do not apply.
> It sounds like liberal BSD with an advertising clause is what was desired
> here, not Public Domain.
no
AIUI it's quite difficult to place work in the public domain in many
important jurisdictions. so, an explicit statement from the copyright
holder is now generally recommended.
- - robert
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org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=8Ey3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Should included public domain source code be tagged with ASF
headers and be under ALv2
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 2:20 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr.<wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
>> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>>> Craig L Russell wrote:
>>>> This reminds me of a small issue with the NOTICE file.
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to recommend that Doug's "contribution" be attributed in the
>>>> NOTICE file, just as we do for more tightly-managed contributions under
>>>> permissive licenses. But as written in the policy [1], the NOTICE file
>>>> is just for copyrights and *required* notices from third parties.
>>>>
>>>> Should we consider changing the policy to allow attribution of public
>>>> domain works incorporated into Apache projects?
>>> Not in LICENSE;
>>
>> really?
>
> Really; LICENSE is for required LICENSE's. Public Domain is not a license,
> by definition it's the non-existence, non-requirement of a license.
>
> It sounds like liberal BSD with an advertising clause is what was desired
> here, not Public Domain.
My opinion:
That's overly pedantic :). Put a reference to it being public domain
in the LICENSE file. It's where people expect to find it.
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Should included public domain source code be tagged with ASF
headers and be under ALv2
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>> Craig L Russell wrote:
>>> This reminds me of a small issue with the NOTICE file.
>>>
>>> I'd like to recommend that Doug's "contribution" be attributed in the
>>> NOTICE file, just as we do for more tightly-managed contributions under
>>> permissive licenses. But as written in the policy [1], the NOTICE file
>>> is just for copyrights and *required* notices from third parties.
>>>
>>> Should we consider changing the policy to allow attribution of public
>>> domain works incorporated into Apache projects?
>> Not in LICENSE;
>
> really?
Really; LICENSE is for required LICENSE's. Public Domain is not a license,
by definition it's the non-existence, non-requirement of a license.
It sounds like liberal BSD with an advertising clause is what was desired
here, not Public Domain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Should included public domain source code be tagged with ASF
headers and be under ALv2
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <rd...@apache.org>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Craig L Russell wrote:
>> This reminds me of a small issue with the NOTICE file.
>>
>> I'd like to recommend that Doug's "contribution" be attributed in the
>> NOTICE file, just as we do for more tightly-managed contributions under
>> permissive licenses. But as written in the policy [1], the NOTICE file
>> is just for copyrights and *required* notices from third parties.
>>
>> Should we consider changing the policy to allow attribution of public
>> domain works incorporated into Apache projects?
>
> Not in LICENSE;
really?
- - robert
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org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=BGD9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Should included public domain source code be tagged with ASF
headers and be under ALv2
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Craig L Russell wrote:
> This reminds me of a small issue with the NOTICE file.
>
> I'd like to recommend that Doug's "contribution" be attributed in the
> NOTICE file, just as we do for more tightly-managed contributions under
> permissive licenses. But as written in the policy [1], the NOTICE file
> is just for copyrights and *required* notices from third parties.
>
> Should we consider changing the policy to allow attribution of public
> domain works incorporated into Apache projects?
Not in LICENSE; not in NOTICE; there is not a legal requirement to carry
that attribution and these are mandatory files.
README is the place, and it is permitted today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Should included public domain source code be tagged with ASF
headers and be under ALv2
Posted by Nathan Beyer <nb...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 12:43 PM, Craig L Russell<Cr...@sun.com> wrote:
> This reminds me of a small issue with the NOTICE file.
>
> I'd like to recommend that Doug's "contribution" be attributed in the NOTICE
> file, just as we do for more tightly-managed contributions under permissive
> licenses. But as written in the policy [1], the NOTICE file is just for
> copyrights and *required* notices from third parties.
Would it be a violation to note this in the NOTICE, if we choose to,
or should we just stick it in README until opinions are worked out?
-Nathan
>
> Should we consider changing the policy to allow attribution of public domain
> works incorporated into Apache projects?
>
> Craig
>
> [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
> NOTICE file
> • Every Apache distribution should include a NOTICE file in the top
> directory, along with the standard LICENSE file.
> • The top of each NOTICE file should include the following text,
> suitably modified to reflect the product name and year(s) of distribution of
> the current and past versions of the product:
> Apache [PRODUCT_NAME]
> Copyright [yyyy] The Apache Software Foundation
>
> This product includes software developed at
> The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
>
> • The remainder of the NOTICE file is to be used for required
> third-party notices. The NOTICE file may also include copyright notices
> moved from source files submitted to the ASF.
> On Aug 5, 2009, at 8:00 AM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
>
>> Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>> IANAL, but AFAIUI, once someone says "this pile of work is under
>> public domain", then under most statues the author has no claims to
>> the work, and therefor anyone can take it and do whatever they want
>> with it, including claiming ownership, copyright and put it under a
>> license.
>>
>> Nope. They can't claim ownership or copyright or put it under a license.
>> They can, however, copy it, create derivative works (and claim copyright to
>> that!), and distribute those collective and derivative works under a
>> license. Note that:
>>
>> The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the
>> material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the
>> preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive
>> right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent
>> of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or
>> subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material. 17 USC
>> 103(b).
>>
>> Niclas Hedhman also wrote:
>>
>> So, for Harmony, I would just suggest that you bring it in as if
>> someone in the community have developed it, but retain a friendly
>> attribution to Doug and a track record of how it arrived here (just in
>> case someone else claim we stole it).
>>
>> That part is good advice.
>>
>> /Larry
>>
>> Lawrence Rosen
>> Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
>> 3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482
>> Office: 707-485-1242 Cell: 707-478-8932
>> Apache Software Foundation, member and counsel (www.apache.org)
>> Stanford University, Instructor in Law
>> Author, Open Source Licensing: Software Freedom and Intellectual Property
>> Law (Prentice Hall 2004)
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: hedhman@gmail.com [mailto:hedhman@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Niclas
>> Hedhman
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 9:43 PM
>> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Should included public domain source code be tagged with ASF
>> headers and be under ALv2
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 9:13 AM, Nathan Beyer<nd...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> > Well, we've finally got the SCM all worked out and the code is being
>> > managed and the changes and updates are happening. The headers have
>> > not been changed yet [3]. Is it appropriate for us to change the
>> > headers and effectively license the files under ALv2? Or should we
>> > just leave them alone?
>>
>> IANAL, but AFAIUI, once someone says "this pile of work is under
>> public domain", then under most statues the author has no claims to
>> the work, and therefor anyone can take it and do whatever they want
>> with it, including claiming ownership, copyright and put it under a
>> license.
>>
>> So, for Harmony, I would just suggest that you bring it in as if
>> someone in the community have developed it, but retain a friendly
>> attribution to Doug and a track record of how it arrived here (just in
>> case someone else claim we stole it).
>>
>> Cheers
>> --
>> Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
>> http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java
>>
>> I live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er
>> I work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc
>> I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>
>
> Craig L Russell
> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo
> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.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: Should included public domain source code be tagged with ASF
headers and be under ALv2
Posted by Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 7:43 PM, Craig L Russell<Cr...@sun.com> wrote:
> Should we consider changing the policy to allow attribution of public domain
> works incorporated into Apache projects?
Keeping track of all the required notices can be a pain for downstream
projects, so I'd rather not add anything extra to the NOTICE files.
BR,
Jukka Zitting
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Should included public domain source code be tagged with ASF
headers and be under ALv2
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
This reminds me of a small issue with the NOTICE file.
I'd like to recommend that Doug's "contribution" be attributed in the
NOTICE file, just as we do for more tightly-managed contributions
under permissive licenses. But as written in the policy [1], the
NOTICE file is just for copyrights and *required* notices from third
parties.
Should we consider changing the policy to allow attribution of public
domain works incorporated into Apache projects?
Craig
[1] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
NOTICE file
• Every Apache distribution should include a NOTICE file in the top
directory, along with the standard LICENSE file.
• The top of each NOTICE file should include the following text,
suitably modified to reflect the product name and year(s) of
distribution of the current and past versions of the product:
Apache [PRODUCT_NAME]
Copyright [yyyy] The Apache Software Foundation
This product includes software developed at
The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
• The remainder of the NOTICE file is to be used for required third-
party notices. The NOTICE file may also include copyright notices
moved from source files submitted to the ASF.
On Aug 5, 2009, at 8:00 AM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> IANAL, but AFAIUI, once someone says "this pile of work is under
> public domain", then under most statues the author has no claims to
> the work, and therefor anyone can take it and do whatever they want
> with it, including claiming ownership, copyright and put it under a
> license.
>
> Nope. They can't claim ownership or copyright or put it under a
> license. They can, however, copy it, create derivative works (and
> claim copyright to that!), and distribute those collective and
> derivative works under a license. Note that:
>
> The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to
> the material contributed by the author of such work, as
> distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work,
> and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material.
> The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or
> enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any
> copyright protection in the preexisting material. 17 USC 103(b).
>
> Niclas Hedhman also wrote:
>
> So, for Harmony, I would just suggest that you bring it in as if
> someone in the community have developed it, but retain a friendly
> attribution to Doug and a track record of how it arrived here (just in
> case someone else claim we stole it).
>
> That part is good advice.
>
> /Larry
>
> Lawrence Rosen
> Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
> 3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482
> Office: 707-485-1242 Cell: 707-478-8932
> Apache Software Foundation, member and counsel (www.apache.org)
> Stanford University, Instructor in Law
> Author, Open Source Licensing: Software Freedom and Intellectual
> Property Law (Prentice Hall 2004)
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: hedhman@gmail.com [mailto:hedhman@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
> Niclas Hedhman
> Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 9:43 PM
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> Subject: Re: Should included public domain source code be tagged
> with ASF headers and be under ALv2
>
> On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 9:13 AM, Nathan Beyer<nd...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Well, we've finally got the SCM all worked out and the code is being
> > managed and the changes and updates are happening. The headers have
> > not been changed yet [3]. Is it appropriate for us to change the
> > headers and effectively license the files under ALv2? Or should we
> > just leave them alone?
>
> IANAL, but AFAIUI, once someone says "this pile of work is under
> public domain", then under most statues the author has no claims to
> the work, and therefor anyone can take it and do whatever they want
> with it, including claiming ownership, copyright and put it under a
> license.
>
> So, for Harmony, I would just suggest that you bring it in as if
> someone in the community have developed it, but retain a friendly
> attribution to Doug and a track record of how it arrived here (just in
> case someone else claim we stole it).
>
> Cheers
> --
> Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
> http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java
>
> I live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er
> I work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc
> I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
Craig L Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!