You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by "Ryan Blue (Jira)" <ji...@apache.org> on 2020/05/21 00:11:00 UTC
[jira] [Updated] (LEGAL-518) Clarify handling of third-party
copyright headers
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-518?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Ryan Blue updated LEGAL-518:
----------------------------
Description:
I submitted a PR to Parquet that included some files from an ALv2 project owned by Cloudera and some files owned by Netflix. To include the code, we followed the [headers policy|#headers]], which states:
{quote}If the source file is submitted with a copyright notice included in it, the copyright owner (or owner's agent) must either:
# remove such notices, or
# move them to the NOTICE file associated with each applicable project release, or
# provide written permission for the ASF to make such removal or relocation of the notices.{quote}
We worked with someone from Cloudera, who authored the relocation of the file's copyright header to the NOTICE file and is a co-author of [the commit|[https://github.com/apache/parquet-mr/commit/ddbeb4dd17d9c219b99b1e66d8be28efe37e3aa6]]. I did the same for Netflix.
At the time, we copied the existing header entirely into NOTICE, including its license notice, "Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License"); . . ."
An IPMC member is now asking Apache Iceberg (which copied both the file and the notice) to edit the original header and include only the Cloudera-specific portion.
Should a project modify a license header that was moved to the NOTICE by the owner or owner's agent? What is the best practice in this situation?
was:
I submitted a PR to Parquet that included some files from an ALv2 project owned by Cloudera and some files owned by Netflix. To include the code, we followed the [headers policy|[http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#headers]], which states:
{quote}If the source file is submitted with a copyright notice included in it, the copyright owner (or owner's agent) must either:
# remove such notices, or
# move them to the NOTICE file associated with each applicable project release, or
# provide written permission for the ASF to make such removal or relocation of the notices.{quote}
We worked with someone from Cloudera, who authored the relocation of the file's copyright header to the NOTICE file and is a co-author of [the commit|[https://github.com/apache/parquet-mr/commit/ddbeb4dd17d9c219b99b1e66d8be28efe37e3aa6]]. I did the same for Netflix.
At the time, we copied the existing header entirely into NOTICE, including its license notice, "Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License"); . . ."
An IPMC member is now asking Apache Iceberg (which copied both the file and the notice) to edit the original header and include only the Cloudera-specific portion.
Should a project modify a license header that was moved to the NOTICE by the owner or owner's agent? What is the best practice in this situation?
> Clarify handling of third-party copyright headers
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LEGAL-518
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-518
> Project: Legal Discuss
> Issue Type: Question
> Reporter: Ryan Blue
> Priority: Major
>
> I submitted a PR to Parquet that included some files from an ALv2 project owned by Cloudera and some files owned by Netflix. To include the code, we followed the [headers policy|#headers]], which states:
> {quote}If the source file is submitted with a copyright notice included in it, the copyright owner (or owner's agent) must either:
> # remove such notices, or
> # move them to the NOTICE file associated with each applicable project release, or
> # provide written permission for the ASF to make such removal or relocation of the notices.{quote}
> We worked with someone from Cloudera, who authored the relocation of the file's copyright header to the NOTICE file and is a co-author of [the commit|[https://github.com/apache/parquet-mr/commit/ddbeb4dd17d9c219b99b1e66d8be28efe37e3aa6]]. I did the same for Netflix.
> At the time, we copied the existing header entirely into NOTICE, including its license notice, "Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License"); . . ."
> An IPMC member is now asking Apache Iceberg (which copied both the file and the notice) to edit the original header and include only the Cloudera-specific portion.
> Should a project modify a license header that was moved to the NOTICE by the owner or owner's agent? What is the best practice in this situation?
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org