You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@oltu.apache.org by Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org> on 2012/01/11 15:32:05 UTC
ASF license and copyrights
Hi all guys,
this mail just to discuss that code donated and imported to the ASF
repository is copyrighted (and trademarked!) only by the Apache
Software Foundation, so no other copyright/license/trademark can be
applied.
You committers, indeed, in order to contribute to Apache Amber, signed
a CLA that assign all rights under the Apache License so that nobody
can make a claim afterwards anything for their contributions.
So please join me on replacing all contributed code with wrong headers
with the ASF one, otherwise we cannot release Amber at all.
Thank you very much in advance, all the best!
-Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
http://www.99soft.org/
Re: ASF license and copyrights
Posted by Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org>.
Hi Paul,
is not my personal issue, my initial codebase indeed is under the ASF
CLA, the issue comes when Leelo joined Amber, bringing OAuth2.0 - and
related copyrights, that Leelo guys are still figuring out with their
OSS advisor at University...
legal@ anyway is the final solution, no way otherwise :)
All the best, have a nice day!
-Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
http://www.99soft.org/
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 5:44 PM, Paul Lindner <li...@inuus.com> wrote:
> I'm a little confused here.
>
> For the initial code drop you should have a signed CLA from the original
> company that assigns copyright to ASF. Is that not the case? Is there
> code that was imported improperly?
>
> NOTICE file is for giving notice that the software contains licensed
> software from elsewhere. In this case you can use the specified code
> intact. Just add RAT rules to skip that. For example in Apache Shindig we
> had a copy of phpunit and Zend in our source tree that had compatible
> licenses, we put the appropriate NOTICE and rat rules in place.
>
> Please do consult with legal-discuss to figure out the right way to move
> forward with this.
>
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 8:00 AM, Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org>wrote:
>
>> Hi David!!!
>>
>> sure, just have a look, for example, at the MD5Generator[1] class, or
>> any of the java class conatined in aouth2-* - RAT (in the release
>> profiles) complains about non-conformity.
>>
>> +1 to move Copyright statements in the NOTICE, sounds more than reasonable.
>>
>> Thanks for your help, have a nice day!
>> -Simo
>>
>> [1] http://s.apache.org/HP7
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
>> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
>> http://www.99soft.org/
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Paul Lindner -- lindner@inuus.com -- profiles.google.com/pmlindner
Re: ASF license and copyrights
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
3 comments inline. I really think we need to check on legal discuss how to handle this. I'd suggest figuring out what to ask on this list first.
-- what are the IP concerns we are trying to resolve? (are we waiting for Newcastle University to tell us something?)
-- show a typical current header for example from the link
-- show a proposed NOTICE file.
-- ask who can make the code change (e.g. a Newcastle University employee?)
david jencks
On Jan 19, 2012, at 8:44 AM, Paul Lindner wrote:
> I'm a little confused here.
>
> For the initial code drop you should have a signed CLA from the original
> company that assigns copyright to ASF. Is that not the case?
That's not the case. The copyright for code remains with the author or original owner. Apache has copyright over the aggregated work. The CLA says that the person signing the CLA has the right to license the work to apache.
> Is there
> code that was imported improperly?
>
> NOTICE file is for giving notice that the software contains licensed
> software from elsewhere.
Well, it's for required legal notices such as the apache one "this product contains software developed at the ASF". Apache strongly discourages contributions from requiring more such notices, but sometimes it happens, for instance with the geronimo admin console notice I quoted.
> In this case you can use the specified code
> intact. Just add RAT rules to skip that. For example in Apache Shindig we
> had a copy of phpunit and Zend in our source tree that had compatible
> licenses, we put the appropriate NOTICE and rat rules in place.
>
> Please do consult with legal-discuss to figure out the right way to move
> forward with this.
>
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 8:00 AM, Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org>wrote:
>
>> Hi David!!!
>>
>> sure, just have a look, for example, at the MD5Generator[1] class, or
>> any of the java class conatined in aouth2-* - RAT (in the release
>> profiles) complains about non-conformity.
I think RAT would not complain if the Newcastle copyright statement was in a separate comment after the apache license header. However we presumably expect these files to eventually be changed, and Newcastle won't necessarily have copyright on the changes, so if a copyright statement is required by Newcastle having it in the NOTICE would be much better.
>>
>> +1 to move Copyright statements in the NOTICE, sounds more than reasonable.
>>
>> Thanks for your help, have a nice day!
>> -Simo
>>
>> [1] http://s.apache.org/HP7
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
>> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
>> http://www.99soft.org/
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Paul Lindner -- lindner@inuus.com -- profiles.google.com/pmlindner
Re: ASF license and copyrights
Posted by Paul Lindner <li...@inuus.com>.
I'm a little confused here.
For the initial code drop you should have a signed CLA from the original
company that assigns copyright to ASF. Is that not the case? Is there
code that was imported improperly?
NOTICE file is for giving notice that the software contains licensed
software from elsewhere. In this case you can use the specified code
intact. Just add RAT rules to skip that. For example in Apache Shindig we
had a copy of phpunit and Zend in our source tree that had compatible
licenses, we put the appropriate NOTICE and rat rules in place.
Please do consult with legal-discuss to figure out the right way to move
forward with this.
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 8:00 AM, Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org>wrote:
> Hi David!!!
>
> sure, just have a look, for example, at the MD5Generator[1] class, or
> any of the java class conatined in aouth2-* - RAT (in the release
> profiles) complains about non-conformity.
>
> +1 to move Copyright statements in the NOTICE, sounds more than reasonable.
>
> Thanks for your help, have a nice day!
> -Simo
>
> [1] http://s.apache.org/HP7
>
> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
> http://www.99soft.org/
>
--
Paul Lindner -- lindner@inuus.com -- profiles.google.com/pmlindner
Re: ASF license and copyrights
Posted by Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org>.
Hi David!!!
sure, just have a look, for example, at the MD5Generator[1] class, or
any of the java class conatined in aouth2-* - RAT (in the release
profiles) complains about non-conformity.
+1 to move Copyright statements in the NOTICE, sounds more than reasonable.
Thanks for your help, have a nice day!
-Simo
[1] http://s.apache.org/HP7
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
http://www.99soft.org/
Re: ASF license and copyrights
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
Can you show the headers for one of these files or provide a link to a file in svn so we have something specific to talk about?
"we" can add the normal apache header before existing copyrights. I thought this made RAT happy but haven't tried it recently.
I think it's usually possible to move copyright statements to the NOTICE file. For instance the geronimo web console NOTICE includes:
-------
Portions of the Web Console were orginally developed by
International Business Machines Corporation and are
licensed to the Apache Software Foundation under the
"Software Grant and Corporate Contribution License Agreement",
informally known as the "IBM Console CLA".
-------
It's still better if someone authorized by the copyright owner (e.g. an employee) moves the copyright notice. Asking a specific question on legal-discuss would be appropriate.
hope this helps
david jencks
On Jan 19, 2012, at 2:53 AM, Simone Tripodi wrote:
> Just as a side note: the RAT wouldn't allow us making a release with
> current headers, so I am really in trouble how to fix that legal
> issue.
> I need to speak with someone from legal@
> -Simo
>
> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
> http://www.99soft.org/
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Pid <pi...@pidster.com> wrote:
>> On 11/01/2012 20:10, Simone Tripodi wrote:
>>> Hi David,
>>>
>>> thanks for your feddbacks, that shows our lack of legal knowledge (ans
>>> legal language as well :P).
>>>
>>> Anyway, what I was pointing, is that code inside Amber contains
>>> copyrightsowned by an external entity, not the authors neither the
>>> ASF.
>>>
>>> So, I'll take your suggestion to submit that case to our legal office,
>>> in order to avoid any misunderstanding.
>>
>> Perhaps you could confirm whether it is normal to move the copyright to
>> the NOTICE file? (I had that impression, perhaps incorrectly).
>>
>> There is also the inconsistent use of the @author javadoc notation and
>> SVN variables - what is the lists opinion about how this should be handled?
>>
>>
>> p
>>
>>
>>> Have a nice day, all the best,
>>> -Simo
>>>
>>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>>> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
>>> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
>>> http://www.99soft.org/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 5:51 PM, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> I don't think this is accurate.
>>>> On Jan 11, 2012, at 6:32 AM, Simone Tripodi wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi all guys,
>>>>>
>>>>> this mail just to discuss that code donated and imported to the ASF
>>>>> repository is copyrighted (and trademarked!) only by the Apache
>>>>> Software Foundation, so no other copyright/license/trademark can be
>>>>> applied.
>>>>
>>>> This is definitely wrong. The original author(s) retain copyright to their work. By contributing it to an apache project they _license_ it to apache. Apache has a copyright over the aggregated work.
>>>>>
>>>>> You committers, indeed, in order to contribute to Apache Amber, signed
>>>>> a CLA that assign all rights under the Apache License so that nobody
>>>>> can make a claim afterwards anything for their contributions.
>>>>
>>>> The cla indicates that you are licensing your contributions to apache, but you retain copyright over your work.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So please join me on replacing all contributed code with wrong headers
>>>>> with the ASF one, otherwise we cannot release Amber at all.
>>>>
>>>> My impression is that the original contributors need to be the ones to remove other license/copyright/notice legal information. It would be best to ask on legal-discuss before making any such changes.
>>>>
>>>> thanks
>>>> david jencks
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you very much in advance, all the best!
>>>>> -Simo
>>>>>
>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>>>>> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
>>>>> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
>>>>> http://www.99soft.org/
>>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> [key:62590808]
>>
Re: ASF license and copyrights
Posted by Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org>.
Just as a side note: the RAT wouldn't allow us making a release with
current headers, so I am really in trouble how to fix that legal
issue.
I need to speak with someone from legal@
-Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
http://www.99soft.org/
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Pid <pi...@pidster.com> wrote:
> On 11/01/2012 20:10, Simone Tripodi wrote:
>> Hi David,
>>
>> thanks for your feddbacks, that shows our lack of legal knowledge (ans
>> legal language as well :P).
>>
>> Anyway, what I was pointing, is that code inside Amber contains
>> copyrightsowned by an external entity, not the authors neither the
>> ASF.
>>
>> So, I'll take your suggestion to submit that case to our legal office,
>> in order to avoid any misunderstanding.
>
> Perhaps you could confirm whether it is normal to move the copyright to
> the NOTICE file? (I had that impression, perhaps incorrectly).
>
> There is also the inconsistent use of the @author javadoc notation and
> SVN variables - what is the lists opinion about how this should be handled?
>
>
> p
>
>
>> Have a nice day, all the best,
>> -Simo
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
>> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
>> http://www.99soft.org/
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 5:51 PM, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> I don't think this is accurate.
>>> On Jan 11, 2012, at 6:32 AM, Simone Tripodi wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi all guys,
>>>>
>>>> this mail just to discuss that code donated and imported to the ASF
>>>> repository is copyrighted (and trademarked!) only by the Apache
>>>> Software Foundation, so no other copyright/license/trademark can be
>>>> applied.
>>>
>>> This is definitely wrong. The original author(s) retain copyright to their work. By contributing it to an apache project they _license_ it to apache. Apache has a copyright over the aggregated work.
>>>>
>>>> You committers, indeed, in order to contribute to Apache Amber, signed
>>>> a CLA that assign all rights under the Apache License so that nobody
>>>> can make a claim afterwards anything for their contributions.
>>>
>>> The cla indicates that you are licensing your contributions to apache, but you retain copyright over your work.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> So please join me on replacing all contributed code with wrong headers
>>>> with the ASF one, otherwise we cannot release Amber at all.
>>>
>>> My impression is that the original contributors need to be the ones to remove other license/copyright/notice legal information. It would be best to ask on legal-discuss before making any such changes.
>>>
>>> thanks
>>> david jencks
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thank you very much in advance, all the best!
>>>> -Simo
>>>>
>>>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>>>> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
>>>> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
>>>> http://www.99soft.org/
>>>
>
>
> --
>
> [key:62590808]
>
Re: ASF license and copyrights
Posted by Pid <pi...@pidster.com>.
On 11/01/2012 20:10, Simone Tripodi wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> thanks for your feddbacks, that shows our lack of legal knowledge (ans
> legal language as well :P).
>
> Anyway, what I was pointing, is that code inside Amber contains
> copyrightsowned by an external entity, not the authors neither the
> ASF.
>
> So, I'll take your suggestion to submit that case to our legal office,
> in order to avoid any misunderstanding.
Perhaps you could confirm whether it is normal to move the copyright to
the NOTICE file? (I had that impression, perhaps incorrectly).
There is also the inconsistent use of the @author javadoc notation and
SVN variables - what is the lists opinion about how this should be handled?
p
> Have a nice day, all the best,
> -Simo
>
> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
> http://www.99soft.org/
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 5:51 PM, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I don't think this is accurate.
>> On Jan 11, 2012, at 6:32 AM, Simone Tripodi wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all guys,
>>>
>>> this mail just to discuss that code donated and imported to the ASF
>>> repository is copyrighted (and trademarked!) only by the Apache
>>> Software Foundation, so no other copyright/license/trademark can be
>>> applied.
>>
>> This is definitely wrong. The original author(s) retain copyright to their work. By contributing it to an apache project they _license_ it to apache. Apache has a copyright over the aggregated work.
>>>
>>> You committers, indeed, in order to contribute to Apache Amber, signed
>>> a CLA that assign all rights under the Apache License so that nobody
>>> can make a claim afterwards anything for their contributions.
>>
>> The cla indicates that you are licensing your contributions to apache, but you retain copyright over your work.
>>
>>>
>>> So please join me on replacing all contributed code with wrong headers
>>> with the ASF one, otherwise we cannot release Amber at all.
>>
>> My impression is that the original contributors need to be the ones to remove other license/copyright/notice legal information. It would be best to ask on legal-discuss before making any such changes.
>>
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>>
>>>
>>> Thank you very much in advance, all the best!
>>> -Simo
>>>
>>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>>> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
>>> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
>>> http://www.99soft.org/
>>
--
[key:62590808]
Re: ASF license and copyrights
Posted by Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org>.
Hi David,
thanks for your feddbacks, that shows our lack of legal knowledge (ans
legal language as well :P).
Anyway, what I was pointing, is that code inside Amber contains
copyrightsowned by an external entity, not the authors neither the
ASF.
So, I'll take your suggestion to submit that case to our legal office,
in order to avoid any misunderstanding.
Have a nice day, all the best,
-Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
http://www.99soft.org/
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 5:51 PM, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I don't think this is accurate.
> On Jan 11, 2012, at 6:32 AM, Simone Tripodi wrote:
>
>> Hi all guys,
>>
>> this mail just to discuss that code donated and imported to the ASF
>> repository is copyrighted (and trademarked!) only by the Apache
>> Software Foundation, so no other copyright/license/trademark can be
>> applied.
>
> This is definitely wrong. The original author(s) retain copyright to their work. By contributing it to an apache project they _license_ it to apache. Apache has a copyright over the aggregated work.
>>
>> You committers, indeed, in order to contribute to Apache Amber, signed
>> a CLA that assign all rights under the Apache License so that nobody
>> can make a claim afterwards anything for their contributions.
>
> The cla indicates that you are licensing your contributions to apache, but you retain copyright over your work.
>
>>
>> So please join me on replacing all contributed code with wrong headers
>> with the ASF one, otherwise we cannot release Amber at all.
>
> My impression is that the original contributors need to be the ones to remove other license/copyright/notice legal information. It would be best to ask on legal-discuss before making any such changes.
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
>>
>> Thank you very much in advance, all the best!
>> -Simo
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
>> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
>> http://www.99soft.org/
>
Re: ASF license and copyrights
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
I don't think this is accurate.
On Jan 11, 2012, at 6:32 AM, Simone Tripodi wrote:
> Hi all guys,
>
> this mail just to discuss that code donated and imported to the ASF
> repository is copyrighted (and trademarked!) only by the Apache
> Software Foundation, so no other copyright/license/trademark can be
> applied.
This is definitely wrong. The original author(s) retain copyright to their work. By contributing it to an apache project they _license_ it to apache. Apache has a copyright over the aggregated work.
>
> You committers, indeed, in order to contribute to Apache Amber, signed
> a CLA that assign all rights under the Apache License so that nobody
> can make a claim afterwards anything for their contributions.
The cla indicates that you are licensing your contributions to apache, but you retain copyright over your work.
>
> So please join me on replacing all contributed code with wrong headers
> with the ASF one, otherwise we cannot release Amber at all.
My impression is that the original contributors need to be the ones to remove other license/copyright/notice legal information. It would be best to ask on legal-discuss before making any such changes.
thanks
david jencks
>
> Thank you very much in advance, all the best!
> -Simo
>
> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
> http://www.99soft.org/
Re: ASF license and copyrights
Posted by Tommaso Teofili <to...@gmail.com>.
Couldn't agree more here, I wondered for some time about those different
headers.
+1 from me for replacing such pieces of code with the ASF headers.
Tommaso
2012/1/11 Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org>
> Hi all guys,
>
> this mail just to discuss that code donated and imported to the ASF
> repository is copyrighted (and trademarked!) only by the Apache
> Software Foundation, so no other copyright/license/trademark can be
> applied.
>
> You committers, indeed, in order to contribute to Apache Amber, signed
> a CLA that assign all rights under the Apache License so that nobody
> can make a claim afterwards anything for their contributions.
>
> So please join me on replacing all contributed code with wrong headers
> with the ASF one, otherwise we cannot release Amber at all.
>
> Thank you very much in advance, all the best!
> -Simo
>
> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
> http://www.99soft.org/
>