You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@flex.apache.org by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> on 2012/06/06 21:22:54 UTC
[MENTORS] Third Party source
Hi Mentors,
Some of the source code in the compiler is copyrighted by Jeff Dyer who wrote some of original code that was then acquired by Macromedia/Adobe. At the time of the donation, Roy Fielding said we should make Jeff a committer so he can move the copyrights to the NOTICES file. Does that make sense? If so, I will ask him to submit an ICLA. I assume his committer status doesn’t require the usual vote protocol? My understanding is that need to get this cleared up in order to cut an official release.
Thanks,
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
Re: [MENTORS] Third Party source
Posted by Greg Reddin <gr...@gmail.com>.
It's not an issue really. We just can't give someone commit access without a vote.
Sent from my mobile device.
On Jun 6, 2012, at 2:41 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 6/6/12 12:32 PM, "Greg Reddin" <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Making him a committer does require the usual vote process. Why would
>> it not?
> Because in this case, the committer has no prior record of merit at Apache.
> He is simply a code owner who wants to help out with the legal clearance of
> his code. If I had known this would be an issue, I would've put him on the
> initial committers list which is another way to become a committer without a
> vote.
>
> Are you sure there are no process exceptions for this scenario?
>
> --
> Alex Harui
> Flex SDK Team
> Adobe Systems, Inc.
> http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
>
Re: [MENTORS] Third Party source
Posted by Greg Reddin <gr...@gmail.com>.
Let me check on this. Thanks.
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 3:42 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
> On 6/6/12 3:16 PM, "Greg Reddin" <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> That would be the easiest path it seems. Otherwise I think the ICLA would
>> cover it but I'd need clarification.
> I just heard back from Jeff. He said he's pretty busy right now and would
> prefer to give permission for us to move the copyrights. How formal does
> this agreement need to be? Just an email? A notarized letter?
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Alex Harui
> Flex SDK Team
> Adobe Systems, Inc.
> http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
>
Re: [MENTORS] Third Party source
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 6/6/12 3:16 PM, "Greg Reddin" <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That would be the easiest path it seems. Otherwise I think the ICLA would
> cover it but I'd need clarification.
I just heard back from Jeff. He said he's pretty busy right now and would
prefer to give permission for us to move the copyrights. How formal does
this agreement need to be? Just an email? A notarized letter?
Thanks,
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
Re: [MENTORS] Third Party source
Posted by Greg Reddin <gr...@gmail.com>.
That would be the easiest path it seems. Otherwise I think the ICLA would cover it but I'd need clarification.
Sent from my mobile device.
On Jun 6, 2012, at 4:38 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> Agreed. Jeff can give us permission to make the change or we can give him
> committer status to make the change himself. The latter path was
> recommended by Roy Fielding so that is what I am pursuing now.
Re: [MENTORS] Third Party source
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 6/6/12 2:35 PM, "Rick Winscot" <ri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Really... this is a non-issue unless copyright / ownership was stipulated in
> the Adobe / Macromedia purchase to be maintained by the originator. That's the
> first question to answer - was it?
Yes it was.
>
>
> Having a notarized release attached to the Jira issue is essential. From a
> legal perspective, if it ain't in writing - it didn't happen. I've been down
> this exact path on two separate occasions.
Agreed. Jeff can give us permission to make the change or we can give him
committer status to make the change himself. The latter path was
recommended by Roy Fielding so that is what I am pursuing now.
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
Re: [MENTORS] Third Party source
Posted by Rick Winscot <ri...@gmail.com>.
Really... this is a non-issue unless copyright / ownership was stipulated in the Adobe / Macromedia purchase to be maintained by the originator. That's the first question to answer - was it?
Let's pretend it was...
#1 create a Jira issue that outlines the nature of the concern / what needs to be done
#2 have the party(ies) in question sign and submit an appropriate notarized release
After you get the release, execute the change(s) as specified.
Having a notarized release attached to the Jira issue is essential. From a legal perspective, if it ain't in writing - it didn't happen. I've been down this exact path on two separate occasions.
On Wednesday, June 6, 2012 at 4:56 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
>
>
>
> On 6/6/12 1:38 PM, "Greg Reddin" <gredbug@gmail.com (mailto:gredbug@gmail.com)> wrote:
>
> > Good point. Maybe having an ICLA on file from him granting rights to his
> > contribution is enough. Or maybe we need to go through a software grant
> > process. He doesn't have to be a committer to grant us rights to incorporate
> > his code.
> >
>
> Jeff's code was granted to Apache by Adobe. Adobe had his permission to do
> so, but his code must still retain his copyright as Adobe nor Apache are the
> owner's agent and we are following our understanding of the rules at [1]
>
> [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
>
> However, the RAT tool complains about these files since they do not have
> Apache headers, and it was Roy Fielding's recommendation that we have Jeff
> replace the headers or give us express permission to do so. A patch in JIRA
> would not be sufficient permission, IMO, but I am not a lawyer.
>
> Now, if we can exclude these files from RAT and still be allowed to release
> that is fine with me too, but I'm under the impression we want to get the
> source headers changed.
>
> --
> Alex Harui
> Flex SDK Team
> Adobe Systems, Inc.
> http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
>
>
Re: [MENTORS] Third Party source
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 6/6/12 1:38 PM, "Greg Reddin" <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Good point. Maybe having an ICLA on file from him granting rights to his
> contribution is enough. Or maybe we need to go through a software grant
> process. He doesn't have to be a committer to grant us rights to incorporate
> his code.
Jeff's code was granted to Apache by Adobe. Adobe had his permission to do
so, but his code must still retain his copyright as Adobe nor Apache are the
owner's agent and we are following our understanding of the rules at [1]
[1] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
However, the RAT tool complains about these files since they do not have
Apache headers, and it was Roy Fielding's recommendation that we have Jeff
replace the headers or give us express permission to do so. A patch in JIRA
would not be sufficient permission, IMO, but I am not a lawyer.
Now, if we can exclude these files from RAT and still be allowed to release
that is fine with me too, but I'm under the impression we want to get the
source headers changed.
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
Re: [MENTORS] Third Party source
Posted by Greg Reddin <gr...@gmail.com>.
Good point. Maybe having an ICLA on file from him granting rights to his contribution is enough. Or maybe we need to go through a software grant process. He doesn't have to be a committer to grant us rights to incorporate his code.
Sent from my mobile device.
On Jun 6, 2012, at 3:30 PM, Rick Winscot <ri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> #1 create a Jira issue that outlines what needs to be done
> #2 have the party(ies) in question submit a patch
>
> Does it need to be more complicated than that?
>
>
> On Wednesday, June 6, 2012 at 3:41 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 6/6/12 12:32 PM, "Greg Reddin" <gredbug@gmail.com (mailto:gredbug@gmail.com)> wrote:
>>
>>> Making him a committer does require the usual vote process. Why would
>>> it not?
>>>
>>
>> Because in this case, the committer has no prior record of merit at Apache.
>> He is simply a code owner who wants to help out with the legal clearance of
>> his code. If I had known this would be an issue, I would've put him on the
>> initial committers list which is another way to become a committer without a
>> vote.
>>
>> Are you sure there are no process exceptions for this scenario?
>>
>> --
>> Alex Harui
>> Flex SDK Team
>> Adobe Systems, Inc.
>> http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
>>
>>
>
>
Re: [MENTORS] Third Party source
Posted by Rick Winscot <ri...@gmail.com>.
#1 create a Jira issue that outlines what needs to be done
#2 have the party(ies) in question submit a patch
Does it need to be more complicated than that?
On Wednesday, June 6, 2012 at 3:41 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
>
>
>
> On 6/6/12 12:32 PM, "Greg Reddin" <gredbug@gmail.com (mailto:gredbug@gmail.com)> wrote:
>
> > Making him a committer does require the usual vote process. Why would
> > it not?
> >
>
> Because in this case, the committer has no prior record of merit at Apache.
> He is simply a code owner who wants to help out with the legal clearance of
> his code. If I had known this would be an issue, I would've put him on the
> initial committers list which is another way to become a committer without a
> vote.
>
> Are you sure there are no process exceptions for this scenario?
>
> --
> Alex Harui
> Flex SDK Team
> Adobe Systems, Inc.
> http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
>
>
Re: [MENTORS] Third Party source
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 6/6/12 12:32 PM, "Greg Reddin" <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Making him a committer does require the usual vote process. Why would
> it not?
Because in this case, the committer has no prior record of merit at Apache.
He is simply a code owner who wants to help out with the legal clearance of
his code. If I had known this would be an issue, I would've put him on the
initial committers list which is another way to become a committer without a
vote.
Are you sure there are no process exceptions for this scenario?
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
Re: [MENTORS] Third Party source
Posted by Greg Reddin <gr...@gmail.com>.
Making him a committer does require the usual vote process. Why would
it not? Any further discussion should take place on flex-private since
it relates to an individual.
Greg
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> Hi Mentors,
>
> Some of the source code in the compiler is copyrighted by Jeff Dyer who wrote some of original code that was then acquired by Macromedia/Adobe. At the time of the donation, Roy Fielding said we should make Jeff a committer so he can move the copyrights to the NOTICES file. Does that make sense? If so, I will ask him to submit an ICLA. I assume his committer status doesn’t require the usual vote protocol? My understanding is that need to get this cleared up in order to cut an official release.
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Alex Harui
> Flex SDK Team
> Adobe Systems, Inc.
> http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
Re: [MENTORS] Third Party source
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 6:15 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> On 6/7/12 3:00 PM, "Greg Stein" <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> "Should a project move non-ASF copyright notices from Apache source files to
>>> the NOTICE file?
>>> No. If the copyright owner is still involved with the project, they should
>>> move the notice themselves or permit us to do so..."
>>
>> That policy exists for us to be nice to the original copyright holder,
>> and to ensure that we don't accidentally remove a statement.
>>
>> Since we have the grant from Adobe, just move the copyright notice
>> yourself. I suspect we'd even have the right to remove it entirely,
>> but again: to be nice, we'll retain it in the NOTICE file.
>>
>> Jeff doesn't have to do it himself: that's just deference to his
>> wishes and ensuring that we don't pre-suppose or get them wrong.
>
> No offense, but are you absolutely sure?
None taken :-)
Whatever *is* or *is not* in the header has zero bearing on the actual
copyright. The notice is there to tell others, not for the holder to
retain their rights. The copyright holder always has their rights,
regardless of any notice.
You're not attempting to alter his copyright (which you can't do);
you're simply altering how to tell others about it.
If you really want legal input along these lines (rather than
Incubator people's advice like myself), then it should have started on
legal-discuss. I've now cc'd that list. They'll provide some opinions
(rather than proper legal advice). If you require formal legal advice,
rather than opinions, then we'd need to do something different
anyways.
[leaving the remainder for benefit of legal-discuss]
>
> Unless I misunderstood the Adobe legal team, we could not remove the
> copyrights without Jeff's permission, otherwise we would have done so prior
> to donation.
>
> Furthermore, in [1] it also says the following:
>
> "Treatment of Third-Party Works
>
> The term "third-party work" refers to a work not submitted directly to the
> ASF by the copyright owner or owner's agent.
> Do not modify or remove any copyright notices or licenses within third-party
> works.
> Do ensure that every third-party work includes its associated license, even
> if that requires adding a copy of the license from the third-party download
> site into the distribution.
> Do not add the standard Apache License header to the top of third-party
> source files.
> Minor modifications/additions to third-party source files should typically
> be licensed under the same terms as the rest of the rest of the third-party
> source for convenience.
> Major modifications/additions to third-party should be dealt with on a
> case-by-case basis by the PMC."
>
> [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
>
> The Adobe legal team and Roy both agreed that we need permission or give him
> committer status.
>
> Thanks,
> --
> Alex Harui
> Flex SDK Team
> Adobe Systems, Inc.
> http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
Cheers,
-g
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: [MENTORS] Third Party source
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 6:15 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> On 6/7/12 3:00 PM, "Greg Stein" <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> "Should a project move non-ASF copyright notices from Apache source files to
>>> the NOTICE file?
>>> No. If the copyright owner is still involved with the project, they should
>>> move the notice themselves or permit us to do so..."
>>
>> That policy exists for us to be nice to the original copyright holder,
>> and to ensure that we don't accidentally remove a statement.
>>
>> Since we have the grant from Adobe, just move the copyright notice
>> yourself. I suspect we'd even have the right to remove it entirely,
>> but again: to be nice, we'll retain it in the NOTICE file.
>>
>> Jeff doesn't have to do it himself: that's just deference to his
>> wishes and ensuring that we don't pre-suppose or get them wrong.
>
> No offense, but are you absolutely sure?
None taken :-)
Whatever *is* or *is not* in the header has zero bearing on the actual
copyright. The notice is there to tell others, not for the holder to
retain their rights. The copyright holder always has their rights,
regardless of any notice.
You're not attempting to alter his copyright (which you can't do);
you're simply altering how to tell others about it.
If you really want legal input along these lines (rather than
Incubator people's advice like myself), then it should have started on
legal-discuss. I've now cc'd that list. They'll provide some opinions
(rather than proper legal advice). If you require formal legal advice,
rather than opinions, then we'd need to do something different
anyways.
[leaving the remainder for benefit of legal-discuss]
>
> Unless I misunderstood the Adobe legal team, we could not remove the
> copyrights without Jeff's permission, otherwise we would have done so prior
> to donation.
>
> Furthermore, in [1] it also says the following:
>
> "Treatment of Third-Party Works
>
> The term "third-party work" refers to a work not submitted directly to the
> ASF by the copyright owner or owner's agent.
> Do not modify or remove any copyright notices or licenses within third-party
> works.
> Do ensure that every third-party work includes its associated license, even
> if that requires adding a copy of the license from the third-party download
> site into the distribution.
> Do not add the standard Apache License header to the top of third-party
> source files.
> Minor modifications/additions to third-party source files should typically
> be licensed under the same terms as the rest of the rest of the third-party
> source for convenience.
> Major modifications/additions to third-party should be dealt with on a
> case-by-case basis by the PMC."
>
> [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
>
> The Adobe legal team and Roy both agreed that we need permission or give him
> committer status.
>
> Thanks,
> --
> Alex Harui
> Flex SDK Team
> Adobe Systems, Inc.
> http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
Cheers,
-g
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [MENTORS] Third Party source
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 6:15 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> On 6/7/12 3:00 PM, "Greg Stein" <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> "Should a project move non-ASF copyright notices from Apache source files to
>>> the NOTICE file?
>>> No. If the copyright owner is still involved with the project, they should
>>> move the notice themselves or permit us to do so..."
>>
>> That policy exists for us to be nice to the original copyright holder,
>> and to ensure that we don't accidentally remove a statement.
>>
>> Since we have the grant from Adobe, just move the copyright notice
>> yourself. I suspect we'd even have the right to remove it entirely,
>> but again: to be nice, we'll retain it in the NOTICE file.
>>
>> Jeff doesn't have to do it himself: that's just deference to his
>> wishes and ensuring that we don't pre-suppose or get them wrong.
>
> No offense, but are you absolutely sure?
None taken :-)
Whatever *is* or *is not* in the header has zero bearing on the actual
copyright. The notice is there to tell others, not for the holder to
retain their rights. The copyright holder always has their rights,
regardless of any notice.
You're not attempting to alter his copyright (which you can't do);
you're simply altering how to tell others about it.
If you really want legal input along these lines (rather than
Incubator people's advice like myself), then it should have started on
legal-discuss. I've now cc'd that list. They'll provide some opinions
(rather than proper legal advice). If you require formal legal advice,
rather than opinions, then we'd need to do something different
anyways.
[leaving the remainder for benefit of legal-discuss]
>
> Unless I misunderstood the Adobe legal team, we could not remove the
> copyrights without Jeff's permission, otherwise we would have done so prior
> to donation.
>
> Furthermore, in [1] it also says the following:
>
> "Treatment of Third-Party Works
>
> The term "third-party work" refers to a work not submitted directly to the
> ASF by the copyright owner or owner's agent.
> Do not modify or remove any copyright notices or licenses within third-party
> works.
> Do ensure that every third-party work includes its associated license, even
> if that requires adding a copy of the license from the third-party download
> site into the distribution.
> Do not add the standard Apache License header to the top of third-party
> source files.
> Minor modifications/additions to third-party source files should typically
> be licensed under the same terms as the rest of the rest of the third-party
> source for convenience.
> Major modifications/additions to third-party should be dealt with on a
> case-by-case basis by the PMC."
>
> [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
>
> The Adobe legal team and Roy both agreed that we need permission or give him
> committer status.
>
> Thanks,
> --
> Alex Harui
> Flex SDK Team
> Adobe Systems, Inc.
> http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
Cheers,
-g
Re: [MENTORS] Third Party source
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> So based on my understanding from your description: yeah. We don't
> need anything from Jeff.
Since we tend to be extra conservative around here whenever we can and
it isn't too inconvenient, we generally ask that an employee of said
company commit whatever changes are required. Rumor has it that there
is an Adobe employee or two subscribed to this list. :-)
If we can find such a volunteer, then there is no reason for any
further discussion.
- Sam Ruby
Re: [MENTORS] Third Party source
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> So based on my understanding from your description: yeah. We don't
> need anything from Jeff.
Since we tend to be extra conservative around here whenever we can and
it isn't too inconvenient, we generally ask that an employee of said
company commit whatever changes are required. Rumor has it that there
is an Adobe employee or two subscribed to this list. :-)
If we can find such a volunteer, then there is no reason for any
further discussion.
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [MENTORS] Third Party source
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 6/7/12 3:33 PM, "Greg Stein" <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 6:13 PM, Greg Reddin <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 5:00 PM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Jeff doesn't have to do it himself: that's just deference to his
>>> wishes and ensuring that we don't pre-suppose or get them wrong.
>>
>> Ah, so there's no legal requirement to deal with here. Adobe cleared
>> that up with the software grant?
>
> From the description you provided, it sounded like Jeff was employed
> by Adobe when he wrote the code. Thus, Adobe actually owns the
> copyrights via work-for-hire rules. And thus, Adobe has the right to
> grant his work to the ASF under the already-filed Software Grant.
>
> So based on my understanding from your description: yeah. We don't
> need anything from Jeff.
>
> To be polite, we ask his wishes (and he's already said "whatever", it
> seems), but we don't *have* to ask.
>
Jeff ran a company and wrote the code while at that company then was
acquired by Macromedia (and then by Adobe). The copyrights are for that
company, and the agreement when acquiring Jeff and his company was such that
Adobe retained his company's copyright in the headers of those files.
Otherwise, the headers would have copyright to Adobe and would have just
changed them.
Thanks,
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
Re: [MENTORS] Third Party source
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 6/7/12 3:33 PM, "Greg Stein" <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 6:13 PM, Greg Reddin <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 5:00 PM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Jeff doesn't have to do it himself: that's just deference to his
>>> wishes and ensuring that we don't pre-suppose or get them wrong.
>>
>> Ah, so there's no legal requirement to deal with here. Adobe cleared
>> that up with the software grant?
>
> From the description you provided, it sounded like Jeff was employed
> by Adobe when he wrote the code. Thus, Adobe actually owns the
> copyrights via work-for-hire rules. And thus, Adobe has the right to
> grant his work to the ASF under the already-filed Software Grant.
>
> So based on my understanding from your description: yeah. We don't
> need anything from Jeff.
>
> To be polite, we ask his wishes (and he's already said "whatever", it
> seems), but we don't *have* to ask.
>
Jeff ran a company and wrote the code while at that company then was
acquired by Macromedia (and then by Adobe). The copyrights are for that
company, and the agreement when acquiring Jeff and his company was such that
Adobe retained his company's copyright in the headers of those files.
Otherwise, the headers would have copyright to Adobe and would have just
changed them.
Thanks,
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [MENTORS] Third Party source
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 6:13 PM, Greg Reddin <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 5:00 PM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Jeff doesn't have to do it himself: that's just deference to his
>> wishes and ensuring that we don't pre-suppose or get them wrong.
>
> Ah, so there's no legal requirement to deal with here. Adobe cleared
> that up with the software grant?
>From the description you provided, it sounded like Jeff was employed
by Adobe when he wrote the code. Thus, Adobe actually owns the
copyrights via work-for-hire rules. And thus, Adobe has the right to
grant his work to the ASF under the already-filed Software Grant.
So based on my understanding from your description: yeah. We don't
need anything from Jeff.
To be polite, we ask his wishes (and he's already said "whatever", it
seems), but we don't *have* to ask.
Cheers,
-g
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [MENTORS] Third Party source
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 6:13 PM, Greg Reddin <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 5:00 PM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Jeff doesn't have to do it himself: that's just deference to his
>> wishes and ensuring that we don't pre-suppose or get them wrong.
>
> Ah, so there's no legal requirement to deal with here. Adobe cleared
> that up with the software grant?
>From the description you provided, it sounded like Jeff was employed
by Adobe when he wrote the code. Thus, Adobe actually owns the
copyrights via work-for-hire rules. And thus, Adobe has the right to
grant his work to the ASF under the already-filed Software Grant.
So based on my understanding from your description: yeah. We don't
need anything from Jeff.
To be polite, we ask his wishes (and he's already said "whatever", it
seems), but we don't *have* to ask.
Cheers,
-g
Re: [MENTORS] Third Party source
Posted by Greg Reddin <gr...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 5:00 PM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jeff doesn't have to do it himself: that's just deference to his
> wishes and ensuring that we don't pre-suppose or get them wrong.
Ah, so there's no legal requirement to deal with here. Adobe cleared
that up with the software grant?
Thanks,
Greg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [MENTORS] Third Party source
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 6/7/12 3:00 PM, "Greg Stein" <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Should a project move non-ASF copyright notices from Apache source files to
>> the NOTICE file?
>> No. If the copyright owner is still involved with the project, they should
>> move the notice themselves or permit us to do so..."
>
> That policy exists for us to be nice to the original copyright holder,
> and to ensure that we don't accidentally remove a statement.
>
> Since we have the grant from Adobe, just move the copyright notice
> yourself. I suspect we'd even have the right to remove it entirely,
> but again: to be nice, we'll retain it in the NOTICE file.
>
> Jeff doesn't have to do it himself: that's just deference to his
> wishes and ensuring that we don't pre-suppose or get them wrong.
>
No offense, but are you absolutely sure?
Unless I misunderstood the Adobe legal team, we could not remove the
copyrights without Jeff's permission, otherwise we would have done so prior
to donation.
Furthermore, in [1] it also says the following:
"Treatment of Third-Party Works
The term "third-party work" refers to a work not submitted directly to the
ASF by the copyright owner or owner's agent.
Do not modify or remove any copyright notices or licenses within third-party
works.
Do ensure that every third-party work includes its associated license, even
if that requires adding a copy of the license from the third-party download
site into the distribution.
Do not add the standard Apache License header to the top of third-party
source files.
Minor modifications/additions to third-party source files should typically
be licensed under the same terms as the rest of the rest of the third-party
source for convenience.
Major modifications/additions to third-party should be dealt with on a
case-by-case basis by the PMC."
[1] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
The Adobe legal team and Roy both agreed that we need permission or give him
committer status.
Thanks,
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
Re: [MENTORS] Third Party source
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 6/7/12 3:00 PM, "Greg Stein" <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Should a project move non-ASF copyright notices from Apache source files to
>> the NOTICE file?
>> No. If the copyright owner is still involved with the project, they should
>> move the notice themselves or permit us to do so..."
>
> That policy exists for us to be nice to the original copyright holder,
> and to ensure that we don't accidentally remove a statement.
>
> Since we have the grant from Adobe, just move the copyright notice
> yourself. I suspect we'd even have the right to remove it entirely,
> but again: to be nice, we'll retain it in the NOTICE file.
>
> Jeff doesn't have to do it himself: that's just deference to his
> wishes and ensuring that we don't pre-suppose or get them wrong.
>
No offense, but are you absolutely sure?
Unless I misunderstood the Adobe legal team, we could not remove the
copyrights without Jeff's permission, otherwise we would have done so prior
to donation.
Furthermore, in [1] it also says the following:
"Treatment of Third-Party Works
The term "third-party work" refers to a work not submitted directly to the
ASF by the copyright owner or owner's agent.
Do not modify or remove any copyright notices or licenses within third-party
works.
Do ensure that every third-party work includes its associated license, even
if that requires adding a copy of the license from the third-party download
site into the distribution.
Do not add the standard Apache License header to the top of third-party
source files.
Minor modifications/additions to third-party source files should typically
be licensed under the same terms as the rest of the rest of the third-party
source for convenience.
Major modifications/additions to third-party should be dealt with on a
case-by-case basis by the PMC."
[1] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
The Adobe legal team and Roy both agreed that we need permission or give him
committer status.
Thanks,
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [MENTORS] Third Party source
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 5:19 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> On 6/7/12 1:58 PM, "Greg Reddin" <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Incubator,
>>
>> See the email below from Alex Harui. I need help figuring out what to do here.
>>
>> I'm not sure if Jeff was ever an employee of Macromedia or what the
>> full situation is. Perhaps Alex can clarify if needed.
>
> Jeff was an employee of Macromedia and Adobe but left before Adobe donated
> his code.
>
>> Essentially, we wanted to offer Jeff commit rights to make the
>> modification as suggested by Roy. But Jeff indicated he's too busy to
>> do it. Since he owns the copyright and seems willing to donate the
>> code, what would be the appropriate methodology here. Do we need a
>> software grant? Would it be sufficient to have an ICLA on file from
>> Jeff?
>
> Adobe already donated the code with Jeff's permission, but with Jeff's
> copyright still in the headers per [1], which also says we should not modify
> the copyright in those headers without his permission.
>
> "Should a project move non-ASF copyright notices from Apache source files to
> the NOTICE file?
> No. If the copyright owner is still involved with the project, they should
> move the notice themselves or permit us to do so..."
That policy exists for us to be nice to the original copyright holder,
and to ensure that we don't accidentally remove a statement.
Since we have the grant from Adobe, just move the copyright notice
yourself. I suspect we'd even have the right to remove it entirely,
but again: to be nice, we'll retain it in the NOTICE file.
Jeff doesn't have to do it himself: that's just deference to his
wishes and ensuring that we don't pre-suppose or get them wrong.
Cheers,
-g
Re: [MENTORS] Third Party source
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 5:19 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> On 6/7/12 1:58 PM, "Greg Reddin" <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Incubator,
>>
>> See the email below from Alex Harui. I need help figuring out what to do here.
>>
>> I'm not sure if Jeff was ever an employee of Macromedia or what the
>> full situation is. Perhaps Alex can clarify if needed.
>
> Jeff was an employee of Macromedia and Adobe but left before Adobe donated
> his code.
>
>> Essentially, we wanted to offer Jeff commit rights to make the
>> modification as suggested by Roy. But Jeff indicated he's too busy to
>> do it. Since he owns the copyright and seems willing to donate the
>> code, what would be the appropriate methodology here. Do we need a
>> software grant? Would it be sufficient to have an ICLA on file from
>> Jeff?
>
> Adobe already donated the code with Jeff's permission, but with Jeff's
> copyright still in the headers per [1], which also says we should not modify
> the copyright in those headers without his permission.
>
> "Should a project move non-ASF copyright notices from Apache source files to
> the NOTICE file?
> No. If the copyright owner is still involved with the project, they should
> move the notice themselves or permit us to do so..."
That policy exists for us to be nice to the original copyright holder,
and to ensure that we don't accidentally remove a statement.
Since we have the grant from Adobe, just move the copyright notice
yourself. I suspect we'd even have the right to remove it entirely,
but again: to be nice, we'll retain it in the NOTICE file.
Jeff doesn't have to do it himself: that's just deference to his
wishes and ensuring that we don't pre-suppose or get them wrong.
Cheers,
-g
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [MENTORS] Third Party source
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 6/8/12 11:36 AM, "Greg Stein" <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 8, 2012 2:33 PM, "Sam Ruby" <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> The individual involved is willing to
>>> allow the copyright to be moved, and we asked here to find out how
> formal
>>> the permission referred to in [1] must be.
>>>
>>> [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
>>
>> Would it be possible for the individual to send a signed letter to
>> secretary@apache.org? Or fax such to to +1-919-573-9199?
>>
>> If such is possible,we will file it in our foundation records and
>> confirm to the PPMC that it has been received.
>
> As Roy said, why not just an email to flex-dev?
Sam, I had already asked the individual to send an email to flex-dev before
I saw your reply. I will try to remember to forward a copy to secretary@
Thanks,
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
Re: [MENTORS] Third Party source
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 6/8/12 11:36 AM, "Greg Stein" <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 8, 2012 2:33 PM, "Sam Ruby" <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> The individual involved is willing to
>>> allow the copyright to be moved, and we asked here to find out how
> formal
>>> the permission referred to in [1] must be.
>>>
>>> [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
>>
>> Would it be possible for the individual to send a signed letter to
>> secretary@apache.org? Or fax such to to +1-919-573-9199?
>>
>> If such is possible,we will file it in our foundation records and
>> confirm to the PPMC that it has been received.
>
> As Roy said, why not just an email to flex-dev?
Sam, I had already asked the individual to send an email to flex-dev before
I saw your reply. I will try to remember to forward a copy to secretary@
Thanks,
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [MENTORS] Third Party source
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Jun 8, 2012 2:33 PM, "Sam Ruby" <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> >
> > The individual involved is willing to
> > allow the copyright to be moved, and we asked here to find out how
formal
> > the permission referred to in [1] must be.
> >
> > [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
>
> Would it be possible for the individual to send a signed letter to
> secretary@apache.org? Or fax such to to +1-919-573-9199?
>
> If such is possible,we will file it in our foundation records and
> confirm to the PPMC that it has been received.
As Roy said, why not just an email to flex-dev?
Re: [MENTORS] Third Party source
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Jun 8, 2012 2:33 PM, "Sam Ruby" <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> >
> > The individual involved is willing to
> > allow the copyright to be moved, and we asked here to find out how
formal
> > the permission referred to in [1] must be.
> >
> > [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
>
> Would it be possible for the individual to send a signed letter to
> secretary@apache.org? Or fax such to to +1-919-573-9199?
>
> If such is possible,we will file it in our foundation records and
> confirm to the PPMC that it has been received.
As Roy said, why not just an email to flex-dev?
Re: [MENTORS] Third Party source
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
> The individual involved is willing to
> allow the copyright to be moved, and we asked here to find out how formal
> the permission referred to in [1] must be.
>
> [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
Would it be possible for the individual to send a signed letter to
secretary@apache.org? Or fax such to to +1-919-573-9199?
If such is possible,we will file it in our foundation records and
confirm to the PPMC that it has been received.
- Sam Ruby
Re: [MENTORS] Third Party source
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
> The individual involved is willing to
> allow the copyright to be moved, and we asked here to find out how formal
> the permission referred to in [1] must be.
>
> [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
Would it be possible for the individual to send a signed letter to
secretary@apache.org? Or fax such to to +1-919-573-9199?
If such is possible,we will file it in our foundation records and
confirm to the PPMC that it has been received.
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: [MENTORS] Third Party source
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
Along with the policy and trustworthiness matters that Sam provides, I can speculate some other reasons for concern about removing/replacing notices (of any kind) --
* Removal of a copyright notice can be taken as evidence of intentional infringement if not negligent infringement.
* Removal of notices is often an indication that someone things relicensing is possible and valid when that is almost never the case except when done by the copyright holder(s).
* Preserving the provenance of combined/derivative works is extremely important, not merely because of the way the ASF chooses to operate in the public interest. It can be critical in demonstration that the ASF has been diligent in avoiding infringement and making reasonable but responsible reliance on the care and diligence of its contributors.
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: sa3ruby@gmail.com [mailto:sa3ruby@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Sam Ruby
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2012 09:07
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Cc: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [MENTORS] Third Party source
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Kalle Korhonen
<ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 11:06 PM, Roy T. Fielding <fi...@gbiv.com> wrote:
>> I fear we are miscommunicating again.
>> Only the copyright owner is allowed to (re)move copyright notices
>> or permit others to (re)move them on the owner's behalf.
>
> Interesting, why is that? Is it so by the law?
It would be helpful if somebody could point out the actual words in
the copyright headers being discussed. I may have missed it.
The copyright holder may impose limits on copying. I have seen
headers that say, in effect, that you are welcome to copy the source
as long as you retain this header intact.
Meanwhile, much of the goodwill the ASF has accumulated over the years
is due to our policy of only accepting voluntary contributions. We
should not throw that away lightly.
In this case, Adobe isn't hard to reach here. We should seek their
opinion, and respect it.
If Adobe wishes us to retain the headers, my opinion is that we should
evaluate the impact that such a request will have on the community,
and either follow their request or decline the contribution.
If Adobe collectively takes the time to understand our position and
agrees to moving it, there are a number of ways that this can be
expressed clearly. I still maintain that having an Adobe employee do
such a move would be the simplest and clearest way, but other ways are
possible too.
> Kalle
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: [MENTORS] Third Party source
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
Along with the policy and trustworthiness matters that Sam provides, I can speculate some other reasons for concern about removing/replacing notices (of any kind) --
* Removal of a copyright notice can be taken as evidence of intentional infringement if not negligent infringement.
* Removal of notices is often an indication that someone things relicensing is possible and valid when that is almost never the case except when done by the copyright holder(s).
* Preserving the provenance of combined/derivative works is extremely important, not merely because of the way the ASF chooses to operate in the public interest. It can be critical in demonstration that the ASF has been diligent in avoiding infringement and making reasonable but responsible reliance on the care and diligence of its contributors.
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: sa3ruby@gmail.com [mailto:sa3ruby@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Sam Ruby
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2012 09:07
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Cc: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [MENTORS] Third Party source
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Kalle Korhonen
<ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 11:06 PM, Roy T. Fielding <fi...@gbiv.com> wrote:
>> I fear we are miscommunicating again.
>> Only the copyright owner is allowed to (re)move copyright notices
>> or permit others to (re)move them on the owner's behalf.
>
> Interesting, why is that? Is it so by the law?
It would be helpful if somebody could point out the actual words in
the copyright headers being discussed. I may have missed it.
The copyright holder may impose limits on copying. I have seen
headers that say, in effect, that you are welcome to copy the source
as long as you retain this header intact.
Meanwhile, much of the goodwill the ASF has accumulated over the years
is due to our policy of only accepting voluntary contributions. We
should not throw that away lightly.
In this case, Adobe isn't hard to reach here. We should seek their
opinion, and respect it.
If Adobe wishes us to retain the headers, my opinion is that we should
evaluate the impact that such a request will have on the community,
and either follow their request or decline the contribution.
If Adobe collectively takes the time to understand our position and
agrees to moving it, there are a number of ways that this can be
expressed clearly. I still maintain that having an Adobe employee do
such a move would be the simplest and clearest way, but other ways are
possible too.
> Kalle
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [MENTORS] Third Party source
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 6/8/12 9:07 AM, "Sam Ruby" <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Kalle Korhonen
> <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 11:06 PM, Roy T. Fielding <fi...@gbiv.com> wrote:
>>> I fear we are miscommunicating again.
>>> Only the copyright owner is allowed to (re)move copyright notices
>>> or permit others to (re)move them on the owner's behalf.
>>
>> Interesting, why is that? Is it so by the law?
>
> It would be helpful if somebody could point out the actual words in
> the copyright headers being discussed. I may have missed it.
I will describe the situation in more detail below.
>
> In this case, Adobe isn't hard to reach here. We should seek their
> opinion, and respect it.
Adobe legal's opinion will be included in the detail below.
>
> If Adobe wishes us to retain the headers, my opinion is that we should
> evaluate the impact that such a request will have on the community,
> and either follow their request or decline the contribution.
>
> If Adobe collectively takes the time to understand our position and
> agrees to moving it, there are a number of ways that this can be
> expressed clearly. I still maintain that having an Adobe employee do
> such a move would be the simplest and clearest way, but other ways are
> possible too.
Here is a more detailed description of the situation:
An individual starts a company and writes some code.
Macromedia acquires that individual and the code. Each source file has a
header:
/*
* Written by Individual
* Copyright (c) 1998-2003 Individual's Company
* All rights reserved.
*/
Adobe acquires Macromedia. The code is incorporated into a larger product
via Macromedia and Adobe engineers. New files in the larger product have
Adobe copyrights, but the acquired code must retain the original copyrights
according to Adobe Legal.
The individual leaves Adobe. Adobe wishes to donate the code to Apache.
The individual's agreement upon acquisition allows Adobe to donate such code
and it is donated via a software grant.
Adobe Legal says that Adobe engineers can replace the Adobe copyrights with
Apache headers, but Adobe engineers still do not have the right to replace
the individual's copyrights in the other files, and [1] says that Apache
folks should not either.
So, this is not really an Adobe issue. Adobe does not own the copyright to
the files in question and therefore cannot agree to moving it, but Adobe did
have permission to donate the code. The individual involved is willing to
allow the copyright to be moved, and we asked here to find out how formal
the permission referred to in [1] must be.
[1] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
Re: [MENTORS] Third Party source
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 6/8/12 9:07 AM, "Sam Ruby" <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Kalle Korhonen
> <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 11:06 PM, Roy T. Fielding <fi...@gbiv.com> wrote:
>>> I fear we are miscommunicating again.
>>> Only the copyright owner is allowed to (re)move copyright notices
>>> or permit others to (re)move them on the owner's behalf.
>>
>> Interesting, why is that? Is it so by the law?
>
> It would be helpful if somebody could point out the actual words in
> the copyright headers being discussed. I may have missed it.
I will describe the situation in more detail below.
>
> In this case, Adobe isn't hard to reach here. We should seek their
> opinion, and respect it.
Adobe legal's opinion will be included in the detail below.
>
> If Adobe wishes us to retain the headers, my opinion is that we should
> evaluate the impact that such a request will have on the community,
> and either follow their request or decline the contribution.
>
> If Adobe collectively takes the time to understand our position and
> agrees to moving it, there are a number of ways that this can be
> expressed clearly. I still maintain that having an Adobe employee do
> such a move would be the simplest and clearest way, but other ways are
> possible too.
Here is a more detailed description of the situation:
An individual starts a company and writes some code.
Macromedia acquires that individual and the code. Each source file has a
header:
/*
* Written by Individual
* Copyright (c) 1998-2003 Individual's Company
* All rights reserved.
*/
Adobe acquires Macromedia. The code is incorporated into a larger product
via Macromedia and Adobe engineers. New files in the larger product have
Adobe copyrights, but the acquired code must retain the original copyrights
according to Adobe Legal.
The individual leaves Adobe. Adobe wishes to donate the code to Apache.
The individual's agreement upon acquisition allows Adobe to donate such code
and it is donated via a software grant.
Adobe Legal says that Adobe engineers can replace the Adobe copyrights with
Apache headers, but Adobe engineers still do not have the right to replace
the individual's copyrights in the other files, and [1] says that Apache
folks should not either.
So, this is not really an Adobe issue. Adobe does not own the copyright to
the files in question and therefore cannot agree to moving it, but Adobe did
have permission to donate the code. The individual involved is willing to
allow the copyright to be moved, and we asked here to find out how formal
the permission referred to in [1] must be.
[1] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [MENTORS] Third Party source
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Kalle Korhonen
<ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 11:06 PM, Roy T. Fielding <fi...@gbiv.com> wrote:
>> I fear we are miscommunicating again.
>> Only the copyright owner is allowed to (re)move copyright notices
>> or permit others to (re)move them on the owner's behalf.
>
> Interesting, why is that? Is it so by the law?
It would be helpful if somebody could point out the actual words in
the copyright headers being discussed. I may have missed it.
The copyright holder may impose limits on copying. I have seen
headers that say, in effect, that you are welcome to copy the source
as long as you retain this header intact.
Meanwhile, much of the goodwill the ASF has accumulated over the years
is due to our policy of only accepting voluntary contributions. We
should not throw that away lightly.
In this case, Adobe isn't hard to reach here. We should seek their
opinion, and respect it.
If Adobe wishes us to retain the headers, my opinion is that we should
evaluate the impact that such a request will have on the community,
and either follow their request or decline the contribution.
If Adobe collectively takes the time to understand our position and
agrees to moving it, there are a number of ways that this can be
expressed clearly. I still maintain that having an Adobe employee do
such a move would be the simplest and clearest way, but other ways are
possible too.
> Kalle
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [MENTORS] Third Party source
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Kalle Korhonen
<ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 11:06 PM, Roy T. Fielding <fi...@gbiv.com> wrote:
>> I fear we are miscommunicating again.
>> Only the copyright owner is allowed to (re)move copyright notices
>> or permit others to (re)move them on the owner's behalf.
>
> Interesting, why is that? Is it so by the law?
It would be helpful if somebody could point out the actual words in
the copyright headers being discussed. I may have missed it.
The copyright holder may impose limits on copying. I have seen
headers that say, in effect, that you are welcome to copy the source
as long as you retain this header intact.
Meanwhile, much of the goodwill the ASF has accumulated over the years
is due to our policy of only accepting voluntary contributions. We
should not throw that away lightly.
In this case, Adobe isn't hard to reach here. We should seek their
opinion, and respect it.
If Adobe wishes us to retain the headers, my opinion is that we should
evaluate the impact that such a request will have on the community,
and either follow their request or decline the contribution.
If Adobe collectively takes the time to understand our position and
agrees to moving it, there are a number of ways that this can be
expressed clearly. I still maintain that having an Adobe employee do
such a move would be the simplest and clearest way, but other ways are
possible too.
> Kalle
- Sam Ruby
Re: [MENTORS] Third Party source
Posted by Kalle Korhonen <ka...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 11:06 PM, Roy T. Fielding <fi...@gbiv.com> wrote:
> I fear we are miscommunicating again.
> Only the copyright owner is allowed to (re)move copyright notices
> or permit others to (re)move them on the owner's behalf.
Interesting, why is that? Is it so by the law?
Kalle
Re: [MENTORS] Third Party source
Posted by Kalle Korhonen <ka...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 11:06 PM, Roy T. Fielding <fi...@gbiv.com> wrote:
> I fear we are miscommunicating again.
> Only the copyright owner is allowed to (re)move copyright notices
> or permit others to (re)move them on the owner's behalf.
Interesting, why is that? Is it so by the law?
Kalle
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [MENTORS] Third Party source
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
I fear we are miscommunicating again.
Only the copyright owner is allowed to (re)move copyright notices
or permit others to (re)move them on the owner's behalf.
Jeff just needs to give the project permission -- one simple
email message to the list is enough -- and then anyone at Apache
can move them. He doesn't need commit access if he doesn't want it.
If he doesn't want to give permission, then just leave them
as they are. It is not a prerequisite on releasing the code.
Our *desire* for a company granting code to Apache to remove
their own copyright notices from every file is because
1) it hinders open collaboration if volunteers think their
new work is going to look like it is owned by company (C)
2) if one contributor gets credit in a file, then *every*
significant contributor should have the same credit,
which is a problem for contributors that would rather
not be the first point of contact during a lawsuit.
and so we request the notices be moved at the time of (or
shortly after) initial code donation because that is when
folks are happy to do so and actively communicating with
the ASF. It is also for their own good, even if they don't
know it yet.
....Roy
On Jun 7, 2012, at 1:58 PM, Greg Reddin wrote:
> Hi Incubator,
>
> See the email below from Alex Harui. I need help figuring out what to do here.
>
> I'm not sure if Jeff was ever an employee of Macromedia or what the
> full situation is. Perhaps Alex can clarify if needed.
>
> Essentially, we wanted to offer Jeff commit rights to make the
> modification as suggested by Roy. But Jeff indicated he's too busy to
> do it. Since he owns the copyright and seems willing to donate the
> code, what would be the appropriate methodology here. Do we need a
> software grant? Would it be sufficient to have an ICLA on file from
> Jeff?
>
> Thanks,
> Greg
>
> On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>> Hi Mentors,
>>
>> Some of the source code in the compiler is copyrighted by Jeff Dyer who wrote some of original code that was then acquired by Macromedia/Adobe. At the time of the donation, Roy Fielding said we should make Jeff a committer so he can move the copyrights to the NOTICES file. Does that make sense? If so, I will ask him to submit an ICLA. I assume his committer status doesn’t require the usual vote protocol? My understanding is that need to get this cleared up in order to cut an official release.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> --
>> Alex Harui
>> Flex SDK Team
>> Adobe Systems, Inc.
>> http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [MENTORS] Third Party source
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 6/7/12 1:58 PM, "Greg Reddin" <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Incubator,
>
> See the email below from Alex Harui. I need help figuring out what to do here.
>
> I'm not sure if Jeff was ever an employee of Macromedia or what the
> full situation is. Perhaps Alex can clarify if needed.
Jeff was an employee of Macromedia and Adobe but left before Adobe donated
his code.
>
> Essentially, we wanted to offer Jeff commit rights to make the
> modification as suggested by Roy. But Jeff indicated he's too busy to
> do it. Since he owns the copyright and seems willing to donate the
> code, what would be the appropriate methodology here. Do we need a
> software grant? Would it be sufficient to have an ICLA on file from
> Jeff?
Adobe already donated the code with Jeff's permission, but with Jeff's
copyright still in the headers per [1], which also says we should not modify
the copyright in those headers without his permission.
"Should a project move non-ASF copyright notices from Apache source files to
the NOTICE file?
No. If the copyright owner is still involved with the project, they should
move the notice themselves or permit us to do so..."
[1] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [MENTORS] Third Party source
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 6/7/12 1:58 PM, "Greg Reddin" <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Incubator,
>
> See the email below from Alex Harui. I need help figuring out what to do here.
>
> I'm not sure if Jeff was ever an employee of Macromedia or what the
> full situation is. Perhaps Alex can clarify if needed.
Jeff was an employee of Macromedia and Adobe but left before Adobe donated
his code.
>
> Essentially, we wanted to offer Jeff commit rights to make the
> modification as suggested by Roy. But Jeff indicated he's too busy to
> do it. Since he owns the copyright and seems willing to donate the
> code, what would be the appropriate methodology here. Do we need a
> software grant? Would it be sufficient to have an ICLA on file from
> Jeff?
Adobe already donated the code with Jeff's permission, but with Jeff's
copyright still in the headers per [1], which also says we should not modify
the copyright in those headers without his permission.
"Should a project move non-ASF copyright notices from Apache source files to
the NOTICE file?
No. If the copyright owner is still involved with the project, they should
move the notice themselves or permit us to do so..."
[1] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
Re: [MENTORS] Third Party source
Posted by Greg Reddin <gr...@gmail.com>.
Hi Incubator,
See the email below from Alex Harui. I need help figuring out what to do here.
I'm not sure if Jeff was ever an employee of Macromedia or what the
full situation is. Perhaps Alex can clarify if needed.
Essentially, we wanted to offer Jeff commit rights to make the
modification as suggested by Roy. But Jeff indicated he's too busy to
do it. Since he owns the copyright and seems willing to donate the
code, what would be the appropriate methodology here. Do we need a
software grant? Would it be sufficient to have an ICLA on file from
Jeff?
Thanks,
Greg
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> Hi Mentors,
>
> Some of the source code in the compiler is copyrighted by Jeff Dyer who wrote some of original code that was then acquired by Macromedia/Adobe. At the time of the donation, Roy Fielding said we should make Jeff a committer so he can move the copyrights to the NOTICES file. Does that make sense? If so, I will ask him to submit an ICLA. I assume his committer status doesn’t require the usual vote protocol? My understanding is that need to get this cleared up in order to cut an official release.
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Alex Harui
> Flex SDK Team
> Adobe Systems, Inc.
> http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [MENTORS] Third Party source
Posted by Greg Reddin <gr...@gmail.com>.
Hi Incubator,
See the email below from Alex Harui. I need help figuring out what to do here.
I'm not sure if Jeff was ever an employee of Macromedia or what the
full situation is. Perhaps Alex can clarify if needed.
Essentially, we wanted to offer Jeff commit rights to make the
modification as suggested by Roy. But Jeff indicated he's too busy to
do it. Since he owns the copyright and seems willing to donate the
code, what would be the appropriate methodology here. Do we need a
software grant? Would it be sufficient to have an ICLA on file from
Jeff?
Thanks,
Greg
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> Hi Mentors,
>
> Some of the source code in the compiler is copyrighted by Jeff Dyer who wrote some of original code that was then acquired by Macromedia/Adobe. At the time of the donation, Roy Fielding said we should make Jeff a committer so he can move the copyrights to the NOTICES file. Does that make sense? If so, I will ask him to submit an ICLA. I assume his committer status doesn’t require the usual vote protocol? My understanding is that need to get this cleared up in order to cut an official release.
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Alex Harui
> Flex SDK Team
> Adobe Systems, Inc.
> http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui