You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <or...@apache.org> on 2011/08/28 21:18:12 UTC
RE: [Repo][Proposal] NOT SO FAST ON CHANGING HEADERS
Item (a, below) did not strike me as important until I saw it again while looking for the information about the missing/problem files in the SVN import from Mercurial.
There are special rules for dealing with headers in third-party software and in software under an SGA. We need to follow those.
In particular, the general way that headers are changed in code under an SGA is by the contributor changing them, because they have the right to do so as the copyright holder.
Since that has not been done, we need some guidance on what to do with the headers on the current files.
My concern is that we need may need a modification of the DO NOT ALTER OR REMOVE ... copyright notice, and the license and disclaimer header, but we can't just paste the stock ALv2 "Code Developed at the ASF" header and notice in its place.
See <http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html> for relevant information. (Note: According to this material, we can replace or move the notices if Apache has written permission to do so. We need to be advised on what the actual case is and how to deal with it. I.e., do we make NOTICE files, can we remove the in-header copyright notices, etc.)
- Dennis
PS: I notice in the Podling Mentor guide that the Cryptography Audit must be done at once (and should have been done before committing the code to SVN). See the draft information at <http://incubator.apache.org/guides/mentor.html#bootstrap>.
-----Original Message-----
From: Stephan Bergmann [mailto:stephan.bergmann.secondary@googlemail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 04:07
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Repo][Proposal]After the code is checked in to SVN
[ ... ]
Two more steps that we might want to phase in somewhere are:
(a) Replace the Oracle/LGPLv3 license headers in all the relevant files with Apache/AL2 ones. Is this maybe legally important to do as early as possible, or can it wait until end-of-incubation? Probably makes no sense to do before phase 5, anyway.
[ ... ]
-Stephan=
Re: [Repo][Proposal] NOT SO FAST ON CHANGING HEADERS
Posted by Craig L Russell <cr...@oracle.com>.
Hi Dennis,
On Aug 29, 2011, at 8:44 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> OK,
>
> I assume that, for an Apache Project, the standard license header is
> the one without copyright notices and beginning "Licensed to the
> Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more contributor
> license agreements." Is that correct for code under the CGA?
Yes.
>
> I don't know what the list of files in the grant looks like but
> there are nearly 100,000 individual artifacts in that code base.
The list of files is in the grant. Not everything in OO.o was owned by
Oracle, so we have to be careful not to change the license of those
files *not* included in the grant.
>
> Andrew Rist is the only Apache OpenOffice.org committer of those you
> named. Peter Korn was invited and declined.
Thanks for clarifying.
Regards,
Craig
>
> I'll check with Andrew to see if he is able to do this.
>
> - Dennis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Craig L Russell [mailto:craig.russell@oracle.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 06:28
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> Subject: Re: [Repo][Proposal] NOT SO FAST ON CHANGING HEADERS
>
> On Aug 28, 2011, at 1:37 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> We have finally brought a large chunk of the OpenOffice.org code
>> base over to the Apache SVN under our incubator portion of the code
>> tree.
>>
>> There are still notices on those files, such as the one copied below.
>>
>> We want to be careful in handling these files appropriately. My
>> questions are
>>
>> 1. Can we replace these notices with the standard "Code Developed at
>> Apache" header?
>
> Since we have two committers who are from Oracle, and the clear intent
> of the Oracle code grant is to allow all the files to be released
> under an Apache license, I'd propose that Andrew Rist or Peter Korn
> make the header replacements for all the files listed in the grant.
>
> That is, remove the Oracle copyright notice/license and replace it
> with the standard Apache license header.
>
> Craig
>
>
>>
>> 2. Along with (1), should we create a NOTICE concerning the origin
>> of the code? (Suggested wording would help).
>>
>> 3. Is there anything else we should be doing that is in line with
>> any particulars of the SGA for this code?
>>
>> We clearly can't handle this as third party code, because the
>> license is not compatible.
>>
>> - Dennis
>>
>> The current notice:
>> /
>> *************************************************************************
>> *
>> * DO NOT ALTER OR REMOVE COPYRIGHT NOTICES OR THIS FILE HEADER.
>> *
>> * Copyright 2000, 2010 Oracle and/or its affiliates.
>> *
>> * OpenOffice.org - a multi-platform office productivity suite
>> *
>> * This file is part of OpenOffice.org.
>> *
>> * OpenOffice.org is free software: you can redistribute it and/or
>> modify
>> * it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License
>> version 3
>> * only, as published by the Free Software Foundation.
>> *
>> * OpenOffice.org is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
>> * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
>> * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
>> * GNU Lesser General Public License version 3 for more details
>> * (a copy is included in the LICENSE file that accompanied this
>> code).
>> *
>> * You should have received a copy of the GNU Lesser General Public
>> License
>> * version 3 along with OpenOffice.org. If not, see
>> * <http://www.openoffice.org/license.html>
>> * for a copy of the LGPLv3 License.
>> *
>> ************************************************************************/
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:orcmid@apache.org]
>> Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2011 12:18
>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Cc: license-discuss@apache.org
>> Subject: RE: [Repo][Proposal] NOT SO FAST ON CHANGING HEADERS
>>
>> Item (a, below) did not strike me as important until I saw it again
>> while looking for the information about the missing/problem files in
>> the SVN import from Mercurial.
>>
>> There are special rules for dealing with headers in third-party
>> software and in software under an SGA. We need to follow those.
>>
>> In particular, the general way that headers are changed in code
>> under an SGA is by the contributor changing them, because they have
>> the right to do so as the copyright holder.
>>
>> Since that has not been done, we need some guidance on what to do
>> with the headers on the current files.
>>
>> My concern is that we need may need a modification of the DO NOT
>> ALTER OR REMOVE ... copyright notice, and the license and disclaimer
>> header, but we can't just paste the stock ALv2 "Code Developed at
>> the ASF" header and notice in its place.
>>
>> See <http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html> for relevant
>> information. (Note: According to this material, we can replace or
>> move the notices if Apache has written permission to do so. We need
>> to be advised on what the actual case is and how to deal with it.
>> I.e., do we make NOTICE files, can we remove the in-header copyright
>> notices, etc.)
>>
>> - Dennis
>>
>> PS: I notice in the Podling Mentor guide that the Cryptography Audit
>> must be done at once (and should have been done before committing
>> the code to SVN). See the draft information at <http://incubator.apache.org/guides/mentor.html#bootstrap
>>> .
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Stephan Bergmann [mailto:stephan.bergmann.secondary@googlemail.com
>> ]
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 04:07
>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [Repo][Proposal]After the code is checked in to SVN
>>
>> [ ... ]
>>
>> Two more steps that we might want to phase in somewhere are:
>>
>> (a) Replace the Oracle/LGPLv3 license headers in all the relevant
>> files with Apache/AL2 ones. Is this maybe legally important to do
>> as early as possible, or can it wait until end-of-incubation?
>> Probably makes no sense to do before phase 5, anyway.
>>
>> [ ... ]
>>
>> -Stephan=
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>
>
> Craig L Russell
> Secretary, Apache Software Foundation
> clr@apache.org http://db.apache.org/jdo
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
Craig L Russell
Architect, Oracle
http://db.apache.org/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@oracle.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
RE: [Repo][Proposal] NOT SO FAST ON CHANGING HEADERS
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
That's true. If ASF receives written permission from Oracle to make the changes, and we have the list, we can then make the changes ourselves.
(My sense is that the options about this are stated in order of decreasing preference.)
It is clearly in Andrew's self-interest to make that happen, if possible [;<).
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: rabastus@gmail.com [mailto:rabastus@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Rob Weir
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 14:41
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; orcmid@apache.org; Andrew Rist
Subject: Re: [Repo][Proposal] NOT SO FAST ON CHANGING HEADERS
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 5:26 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <or...@apache.org> wrote:
> The preference for an SGA is for the *contributor* or their agent to remove any existing headers (that they have the right to remove) and introduce the Apache header.
>
> We bypassed that step in bringing the code base over the way we did.
>
> The suggestion on legal-discuss is that Andrew Rist now make those changes on behalf of Oracle, since he is a PPMC Committer here. I presume he also knows the extent of the CGA so he knows what to touch and can make further updates under any expanded list.
>
This is not really necessary, is it? The page you quoted before [1]
gives a much easier option:
"3. provide written permission for the ASF to make such removal or
relocation of the notices."
Let's do that. We need Andrew for more urgent things related to the
migration than changing header files. Since Oracle is already going
to provided an amended SGA, they could add a single line to that
document giving us permission to remove the notices".
Or do you see a reason why that simpler solution would not work?
[1] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
> If we can't support Andrew in pulling that off (perhaps by figuring out some kind of mechanical way of expediting the rewriting of notices), I guess we have to then find out what Plan B would be.
>
> - Dennis
>
> PS: On the off chance that Plan B would involve getting the repo from Oracle anew, we might want to make sure that we can reproduce the changes that have been made to our current version.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rabastus@gmail.com [mailto:rabastus@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Rob Weir
> Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 08:52
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org; ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [Repo][Proposal] NOT SO FAST ON CHANGING HEADERS
>
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 11:44 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
> <de...@acm.org> wrote:
>> OK,
>>
>> I assume that, for an Apache Project, the standard license header is the one without copyright notices and beginning "Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more contributor license agreements." Is that correct for code under the CGA?
>>
>> I don't know what the list of files in the grant looks like but there are nearly 100,000 individual artifacts in that code base.
>>
>> Andrew Rist is the only Apache OpenOffice.org committer of those you named. Peter Korn was invited and declined.
>>
>> I'll check with Andrew to see if he is able to do this.
>>
>
> I think we should put this on hold for now. As I understand it,
> Oracle is working on amending their SGA to include additional files
> that were missed in their initial contribution. If we change file
> headers, it should be only for those files that are in the original or
> amended SGA. We just can't blast through the directory changing
> headers. Some files will be 3rd party files not included in the SGA.
> And some may be Oracle files missing from the SGA. So the intact
> header information, from Sun, Oracle as well as 3rd party, is
> essential to our success IP review of this code base and for
> identifying whether files are missing from the SGA. So let's resolve
> that before we start changing headers. It will need to be done before
> we do a release. But it doesn't need to be rushed or done first.
>
> -Rob
>
>
>> - Dennis
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Craig L Russell [mailto:craig.russell@oracle.com]
>> Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 06:28
>> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [Repo][Proposal] NOT SO FAST ON CHANGING HEADERS
>>
>> On Aug 28, 2011, at 1:37 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We have finally brought a large chunk of the OpenOffice.org code
>>> base over to the Apache SVN under our incubator portion of the code
>>> tree.
>>>
>>> There are still notices on those files, such as the one copied below.
>>>
>>> We want to be careful in handling these files appropriately. My
>>> questions are
>>>
>>> 1. Can we replace these notices with the standard "Code Developed at
>>> Apache" header?
>>
>> Since we have two committers who are from Oracle, and the clear intent
>> of the Oracle code grant is to allow all the files to be released
>> under an Apache license, I'd propose that Andrew Rist or Peter Korn
>> make the header replacements for all the files listed in the grant.
>>
>> That is, remove the Oracle copyright notice/license and replace it
>> with the standard Apache license header.
>>
>> Craig
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 2. Along with (1), should we create a NOTICE concerning the origin
>>> of the code? (Suggested wording would help).
>>>
>>> 3. Is there anything else we should be doing that is in line with
>>> any particulars of the SGA for this code?
>>>
>>> We clearly can't handle this as third party code, because the
>>> license is not compatible.
>>>
>>> - Dennis
>>>
>>> The current notice:
>>> /
>>> *************************************************************************
>>> *
>>> * DO NOT ALTER OR REMOVE COPYRIGHT NOTICES OR THIS FILE HEADER.
>>> *
>>> * Copyright 2000, 2010 Oracle and/or its affiliates.
>>> *
>>> * OpenOffice.org - a multi-platform office productivity suite
>>> *
>>> * This file is part of OpenOffice.org.
>>> *
>>> * OpenOffice.org is free software: you can redistribute it and/or
>>> modify
>>> * it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License
>>> version 3
>>> * only, as published by the Free Software Foundation.
>>> *
>>> * OpenOffice.org is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
>>> * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
>>> * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
>>> * GNU Lesser General Public License version 3 for more details
>>> * (a copy is included in the LICENSE file that accompanied this code).
>>> *
>>> * You should have received a copy of the GNU Lesser General Public
>>> License
>>> * version 3 along with OpenOffice.org. If not, see
>>> * <http://www.openoffice.org/license.html>
>>> * for a copy of the LGPLv3 License.
>>> *
>>> ************************************************************************/
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:orcmid@apache.org]
>>> Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2011 12:18
>>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> Cc: license-discuss@apache.org
>>> Subject: RE: [Repo][Proposal] NOT SO FAST ON CHANGING HEADERS
>>>
>>> Item (a, below) did not strike me as important until I saw it again
>>> while looking for the information about the missing/problem files in
>>> the SVN import from Mercurial.
>>>
>>> There are special rules for dealing with headers in third-party
>>> software and in software under an SGA. We need to follow those.
>>>
>>> In particular, the general way that headers are changed in code
>>> under an SGA is by the contributor changing them, because they have
>>> the right to do so as the copyright holder.
>>>
>>> Since that has not been done, we need some guidance on what to do
>>> with the headers on the current files.
>>>
>>> My concern is that we need may need a modification of the DO NOT
>>> ALTER OR REMOVE ... copyright notice, and the license and disclaimer
>>> header, but we can't just paste the stock ALv2 "Code Developed at
>>> the ASF" header and notice in its place.
>>>
>>> See <http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html> for relevant
>>> information. (Note: According to this material, we can replace or
>>> move the notices if Apache has written permission to do so. We need
>>> to be advised on what the actual case is and how to deal with it.
>>> I.e., do we make NOTICE files, can we remove the in-header copyright
>>> notices, etc.)
>>>
>>> - Dennis
>>>
>>> PS: I notice in the Podling Mentor guide that the Cryptography Audit
>>> must be done at once (and should have been done before committing
>>> the code to SVN). See the draft information at <http://incubator.apache.org/guides/mentor.html#bootstrap
>>> >.
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Stephan Bergmann [mailto:stephan.bergmann.secondary@googlemail.com
>>> ]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 04:07
>>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: [Repo][Proposal]After the code is checked in to SVN
>>>
>>> [ ... ]
>>>
>>> Two more steps that we might want to phase in somewhere are:
>>>
>>> (a) Replace the Oracle/LGPLv3 license headers in all the relevant
>>> files with Apache/AL2 ones. Is this maybe legally important to do
>>> as early as possible, or can it wait until end-of-incubation?
>>> Probably makes no sense to do before phase 5, anyway.
>>>
>>> [ ... ]
>>>
>>> -Stephan=
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>>
>>
>> Craig L Russell
>> Secretary, Apache Software Foundation
>> clr@apache.org http://db.apache.org/jdo
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
Re: [Repo][Proposal] NOT SO FAST ON CHANGING HEADERS
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@robweir.com>.
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 5:26 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <or...@apache.org> wrote:
> The preference for an SGA is for the *contributor* or their agent to remove any existing headers (that they have the right to remove) and introduce the Apache header.
>
> We bypassed that step in bringing the code base over the way we did.
>
> The suggestion on legal-discuss is that Andrew Rist now make those changes on behalf of Oracle, since he is a PPMC Committer here. I presume he also knows the extent of the CGA so he knows what to touch and can make further updates under any expanded list.
>
This is not really necessary, is it? The page you quoted before [1]
gives a much easier option:
"3. provide written permission for the ASF to make such removal or
relocation of the notices."
Let's do that. We need Andrew for more urgent things related to the
migration than changing header files. Since Oracle is already going
to provided an amended SGA, they could add a single line to that
document giving us permission to remove the notices".
Or do you see a reason why that simpler solution would not work?
[1] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
> If we can't support Andrew in pulling that off (perhaps by figuring out some kind of mechanical way of expediting the rewriting of notices), I guess we have to then find out what Plan B would be.
>
> - Dennis
>
> PS: On the off chance that Plan B would involve getting the repo from Oracle anew, we might want to make sure that we can reproduce the changes that have been made to our current version.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rabastus@gmail.com [mailto:rabastus@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Rob Weir
> Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 08:52
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org; ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [Repo][Proposal] NOT SO FAST ON CHANGING HEADERS
>
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 11:44 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
> <de...@acm.org> wrote:
>> OK,
>>
>> I assume that, for an Apache Project, the standard license header is the one without copyright notices and beginning "Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more contributor license agreements." Is that correct for code under the CGA?
>>
>> I don't know what the list of files in the grant looks like but there are nearly 100,000 individual artifacts in that code base.
>>
>> Andrew Rist is the only Apache OpenOffice.org committer of those you named. Peter Korn was invited and declined.
>>
>> I'll check with Andrew to see if he is able to do this.
>>
>
> I think we should put this on hold for now. As I understand it,
> Oracle is working on amending their SGA to include additional files
> that were missed in their initial contribution. If we change file
> headers, it should be only for those files that are in the original or
> amended SGA. We just can't blast through the directory changing
> headers. Some files will be 3rd party files not included in the SGA.
> And some may be Oracle files missing from the SGA. So the intact
> header information, from Sun, Oracle as well as 3rd party, is
> essential to our success IP review of this code base and for
> identifying whether files are missing from the SGA. So let's resolve
> that before we start changing headers. It will need to be done before
> we do a release. But it doesn't need to be rushed or done first.
>
> -Rob
>
>
>> - Dennis
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Craig L Russell [mailto:craig.russell@oracle.com]
>> Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 06:28
>> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [Repo][Proposal] NOT SO FAST ON CHANGING HEADERS
>>
>> On Aug 28, 2011, at 1:37 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We have finally brought a large chunk of the OpenOffice.org code
>>> base over to the Apache SVN under our incubator portion of the code
>>> tree.
>>>
>>> There are still notices on those files, such as the one copied below.
>>>
>>> We want to be careful in handling these files appropriately. My
>>> questions are
>>>
>>> 1. Can we replace these notices with the standard "Code Developed at
>>> Apache" header?
>>
>> Since we have two committers who are from Oracle, and the clear intent
>> of the Oracle code grant is to allow all the files to be released
>> under an Apache license, I'd propose that Andrew Rist or Peter Korn
>> make the header replacements for all the files listed in the grant.
>>
>> That is, remove the Oracle copyright notice/license and replace it
>> with the standard Apache license header.
>>
>> Craig
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 2. Along with (1), should we create a NOTICE concerning the origin
>>> of the code? (Suggested wording would help).
>>>
>>> 3. Is there anything else we should be doing that is in line with
>>> any particulars of the SGA for this code?
>>>
>>> We clearly can't handle this as third party code, because the
>>> license is not compatible.
>>>
>>> - Dennis
>>>
>>> The current notice:
>>> /
>>> *************************************************************************
>>> *
>>> * DO NOT ALTER OR REMOVE COPYRIGHT NOTICES OR THIS FILE HEADER.
>>> *
>>> * Copyright 2000, 2010 Oracle and/or its affiliates.
>>> *
>>> * OpenOffice.org - a multi-platform office productivity suite
>>> *
>>> * This file is part of OpenOffice.org.
>>> *
>>> * OpenOffice.org is free software: you can redistribute it and/or
>>> modify
>>> * it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License
>>> version 3
>>> * only, as published by the Free Software Foundation.
>>> *
>>> * OpenOffice.org is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
>>> * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
>>> * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
>>> * GNU Lesser General Public License version 3 for more details
>>> * (a copy is included in the LICENSE file that accompanied this code).
>>> *
>>> * You should have received a copy of the GNU Lesser General Public
>>> License
>>> * version 3 along with OpenOffice.org. If not, see
>>> * <http://www.openoffice.org/license.html>
>>> * for a copy of the LGPLv3 License.
>>> *
>>> ************************************************************************/
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:orcmid@apache.org]
>>> Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2011 12:18
>>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> Cc: license-discuss@apache.org
>>> Subject: RE: [Repo][Proposal] NOT SO FAST ON CHANGING HEADERS
>>>
>>> Item (a, below) did not strike me as important until I saw it again
>>> while looking for the information about the missing/problem files in
>>> the SVN import from Mercurial.
>>>
>>> There are special rules for dealing with headers in third-party
>>> software and in software under an SGA. We need to follow those.
>>>
>>> In particular, the general way that headers are changed in code
>>> under an SGA is by the contributor changing them, because they have
>>> the right to do so as the copyright holder.
>>>
>>> Since that has not been done, we need some guidance on what to do
>>> with the headers on the current files.
>>>
>>> My concern is that we need may need a modification of the DO NOT
>>> ALTER OR REMOVE ... copyright notice, and the license and disclaimer
>>> header, but we can't just paste the stock ALv2 "Code Developed at
>>> the ASF" header and notice in its place.
>>>
>>> See <http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html> for relevant
>>> information. (Note: According to this material, we can replace or
>>> move the notices if Apache has written permission to do so. We need
>>> to be advised on what the actual case is and how to deal with it.
>>> I.e., do we make NOTICE files, can we remove the in-header copyright
>>> notices, etc.)
>>>
>>> - Dennis
>>>
>>> PS: I notice in the Podling Mentor guide that the Cryptography Audit
>>> must be done at once (and should have been done before committing
>>> the code to SVN). See the draft information at <http://incubator.apache.org/guides/mentor.html#bootstrap
>>> >.
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Stephan Bergmann [mailto:stephan.bergmann.secondary@googlemail.com
>>> ]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 04:07
>>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: [Repo][Proposal]After the code is checked in to SVN
>>>
>>> [ ... ]
>>>
>>> Two more steps that we might want to phase in somewhere are:
>>>
>>> (a) Replace the Oracle/LGPLv3 license headers in all the relevant
>>> files with Apache/AL2 ones. Is this maybe legally important to do
>>> as early as possible, or can it wait until end-of-incubation?
>>> Probably makes no sense to do before phase 5, anyway.
>>>
>>> [ ... ]
>>>
>>> -Stephan=
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>>
>>
>> Craig L Russell
>> Secretary, Apache Software Foundation
>> clr@apache.org http://db.apache.org/jdo
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
RE: [Repo][Proposal] NOT SO FAST ON CHANGING HEADERS
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <or...@apache.org>.
The preference for an SGA is for the *contributor* or their agent to remove any existing headers (that they have the right to remove) and introduce the Apache header.
We bypassed that step in bringing the code base over the way we did.
The suggestion on legal-discuss is that Andrew Rist now make those changes on behalf of Oracle, since he is a PPMC Committer here. I presume he also knows the extent of the CGA so he knows what to touch and can make further updates under any expanded list.
If we can't support Andrew in pulling that off (perhaps by figuring out some kind of mechanical way of expediting the rewriting of notices), I guess we have to then find out what Plan B would be.
- Dennis
PS: On the off chance that Plan B would involve getting the repo from Oracle anew, we might want to make sure that we can reproduce the changes that have been made to our current version.
-----Original Message-----
From: rabastus@gmail.com [mailto:rabastus@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Rob Weir
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 08:52
To: legal-discuss@apache.org; ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Repo][Proposal] NOT SO FAST ON CHANGING HEADERS
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 11:44 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<de...@acm.org> wrote:
> OK,
>
> I assume that, for an Apache Project, the standard license header is the one without copyright notices and beginning "Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more contributor license agreements." Is that correct for code under the CGA?
>
> I don't know what the list of files in the grant looks like but there are nearly 100,000 individual artifacts in that code base.
>
> Andrew Rist is the only Apache OpenOffice.org committer of those you named. Peter Korn was invited and declined.
>
> I'll check with Andrew to see if he is able to do this.
>
I think we should put this on hold for now. As I understand it,
Oracle is working on amending their SGA to include additional files
that were missed in their initial contribution. If we change file
headers, it should be only for those files that are in the original or
amended SGA. We just can't blast through the directory changing
headers. Some files will be 3rd party files not included in the SGA.
And some may be Oracle files missing from the SGA. So the intact
header information, from Sun, Oracle as well as 3rd party, is
essential to our success IP review of this code base and for
identifying whether files are missing from the SGA. So let's resolve
that before we start changing headers. It will need to be done before
we do a release. But it doesn't need to be rushed or done first.
-Rob
> - Dennis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Craig L Russell [mailto:craig.russell@oracle.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 06:28
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> Subject: Re: [Repo][Proposal] NOT SO FAST ON CHANGING HEADERS
>
> On Aug 28, 2011, at 1:37 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> We have finally brought a large chunk of the OpenOffice.org code
>> base over to the Apache SVN under our incubator portion of the code
>> tree.
>>
>> There are still notices on those files, such as the one copied below.
>>
>> We want to be careful in handling these files appropriately. My
>> questions are
>>
>> 1. Can we replace these notices with the standard "Code Developed at
>> Apache" header?
>
> Since we have two committers who are from Oracle, and the clear intent
> of the Oracle code grant is to allow all the files to be released
> under an Apache license, I'd propose that Andrew Rist or Peter Korn
> make the header replacements for all the files listed in the grant.
>
> That is, remove the Oracle copyright notice/license and replace it
> with the standard Apache license header.
>
> Craig
>
>
>>
>> 2. Along with (1), should we create a NOTICE concerning the origin
>> of the code? (Suggested wording would help).
>>
>> 3. Is there anything else we should be doing that is in line with
>> any particulars of the SGA for this code?
>>
>> We clearly can't handle this as third party code, because the
>> license is not compatible.
>>
>> - Dennis
>>
>> The current notice:
>> /
>> *************************************************************************
>> *
>> * DO NOT ALTER OR REMOVE COPYRIGHT NOTICES OR THIS FILE HEADER.
>> *
>> * Copyright 2000, 2010 Oracle and/or its affiliates.
>> *
>> * OpenOffice.org - a multi-platform office productivity suite
>> *
>> * This file is part of OpenOffice.org.
>> *
>> * OpenOffice.org is free software: you can redistribute it and/or
>> modify
>> * it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License
>> version 3
>> * only, as published by the Free Software Foundation.
>> *
>> * OpenOffice.org is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
>> * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
>> * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
>> * GNU Lesser General Public License version 3 for more details
>> * (a copy is included in the LICENSE file that accompanied this code).
>> *
>> * You should have received a copy of the GNU Lesser General Public
>> License
>> * version 3 along with OpenOffice.org. If not, see
>> * <http://www.openoffice.org/license.html>
>> * for a copy of the LGPLv3 License.
>> *
>> ************************************************************************/
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:orcmid@apache.org]
>> Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2011 12:18
>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Cc: license-discuss@apache.org
>> Subject: RE: [Repo][Proposal] NOT SO FAST ON CHANGING HEADERS
>>
>> Item (a, below) did not strike me as important until I saw it again
>> while looking for the information about the missing/problem files in
>> the SVN import from Mercurial.
>>
>> There are special rules for dealing with headers in third-party
>> software and in software under an SGA. We need to follow those.
>>
>> In particular, the general way that headers are changed in code
>> under an SGA is by the contributor changing them, because they have
>> the right to do so as the copyright holder.
>>
>> Since that has not been done, we need some guidance on what to do
>> with the headers on the current files.
>>
>> My concern is that we need may need a modification of the DO NOT
>> ALTER OR REMOVE ... copyright notice, and the license and disclaimer
>> header, but we can't just paste the stock ALv2 "Code Developed at
>> the ASF" header and notice in its place.
>>
>> See <http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html> for relevant
>> information. (Note: According to this material, we can replace or
>> move the notices if Apache has written permission to do so. We need
>> to be advised on what the actual case is and how to deal with it.
>> I.e., do we make NOTICE files, can we remove the in-header copyright
>> notices, etc.)
>>
>> - Dennis
>>
>> PS: I notice in the Podling Mentor guide that the Cryptography Audit
>> must be done at once (and should have been done before committing
>> the code to SVN). See the draft information at <http://incubator.apache.org/guides/mentor.html#bootstrap
>> >.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Stephan Bergmann [mailto:stephan.bergmann.secondary@googlemail.com
>> ]
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 04:07
>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [Repo][Proposal]After the code is checked in to SVN
>>
>> [ ... ]
>>
>> Two more steps that we might want to phase in somewhere are:
>>
>> (a) Replace the Oracle/LGPLv3 license headers in all the relevant
>> files with Apache/AL2 ones. Is this maybe legally important to do
>> as early as possible, or can it wait until end-of-incubation?
>> Probably makes no sense to do before phase 5, anyway.
>>
>> [ ... ]
>>
>> -Stephan=
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>
>
> Craig L Russell
> Secretary, Apache Software Foundation
> clr@apache.org http://db.apache.org/jdo
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: [Repo][Proposal] NOT SO FAST ON CHANGING HEADERS
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@robweir.com>.
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 11:44 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<de...@acm.org> wrote:
> OK,
>
> I assume that, for an Apache Project, the standard license header is the one without copyright notices and beginning "Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more contributor license agreements." Is that correct for code under the CGA?
>
> I don't know what the list of files in the grant looks like but there are nearly 100,000 individual artifacts in that code base.
>
> Andrew Rist is the only Apache OpenOffice.org committer of those you named. Peter Korn was invited and declined.
>
> I'll check with Andrew to see if he is able to do this.
>
I think we should put this on hold for now. As I understand it,
Oracle is working on amending their SGA to include additional files
that were missed in their initial contribution. If we change file
headers, it should be only for those files that are in the original or
amended SGA. We just can't blast through the directory changing
headers. Some files will be 3rd party files not included in the SGA.
And some may be Oracle files missing from the SGA. So the intact
header information, from Sun, Oracle as well as 3rd party, is
essential to our success IP review of this code base and for
identifying whether files are missing from the SGA. So let's resolve
that before we start changing headers. It will need to be done before
we do a release. But it doesn't need to be rushed or done first.
-Rob
> - Dennis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Craig L Russell [mailto:craig.russell@oracle.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 06:28
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> Subject: Re: [Repo][Proposal] NOT SO FAST ON CHANGING HEADERS
>
> On Aug 28, 2011, at 1:37 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> We have finally brought a large chunk of the OpenOffice.org code
>> base over to the Apache SVN under our incubator portion of the code
>> tree.
>>
>> There are still notices on those files, such as the one copied below.
>>
>> We want to be careful in handling these files appropriately. My
>> questions are
>>
>> 1. Can we replace these notices with the standard "Code Developed at
>> Apache" header?
>
> Since we have two committers who are from Oracle, and the clear intent
> of the Oracle code grant is to allow all the files to be released
> under an Apache license, I'd propose that Andrew Rist or Peter Korn
> make the header replacements for all the files listed in the grant.
>
> That is, remove the Oracle copyright notice/license and replace it
> with the standard Apache license header.
>
> Craig
>
>
>>
>> 2. Along with (1), should we create a NOTICE concerning the origin
>> of the code? (Suggested wording would help).
>>
>> 3. Is there anything else we should be doing that is in line with
>> any particulars of the SGA for this code?
>>
>> We clearly can't handle this as third party code, because the
>> license is not compatible.
>>
>> - Dennis
>>
>> The current notice:
>> /
>> *************************************************************************
>> *
>> * DO NOT ALTER OR REMOVE COPYRIGHT NOTICES OR THIS FILE HEADER.
>> *
>> * Copyright 2000, 2010 Oracle and/or its affiliates.
>> *
>> * OpenOffice.org - a multi-platform office productivity suite
>> *
>> * This file is part of OpenOffice.org.
>> *
>> * OpenOffice.org is free software: you can redistribute it and/or
>> modify
>> * it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License
>> version 3
>> * only, as published by the Free Software Foundation.
>> *
>> * OpenOffice.org is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
>> * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
>> * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
>> * GNU Lesser General Public License version 3 for more details
>> * (a copy is included in the LICENSE file that accompanied this code).
>> *
>> * You should have received a copy of the GNU Lesser General Public
>> License
>> * version 3 along with OpenOffice.org. If not, see
>> * <http://www.openoffice.org/license.html>
>> * for a copy of the LGPLv3 License.
>> *
>> ************************************************************************/
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:orcmid@apache.org]
>> Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2011 12:18
>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Cc: license-discuss@apache.org
>> Subject: RE: [Repo][Proposal] NOT SO FAST ON CHANGING HEADERS
>>
>> Item (a, below) did not strike me as important until I saw it again
>> while looking for the information about the missing/problem files in
>> the SVN import from Mercurial.
>>
>> There are special rules for dealing with headers in third-party
>> software and in software under an SGA. We need to follow those.
>>
>> In particular, the general way that headers are changed in code
>> under an SGA is by the contributor changing them, because they have
>> the right to do so as the copyright holder.
>>
>> Since that has not been done, we need some guidance on what to do
>> with the headers on the current files.
>>
>> My concern is that we need may need a modification of the DO NOT
>> ALTER OR REMOVE ... copyright notice, and the license and disclaimer
>> header, but we can't just paste the stock ALv2 "Code Developed at
>> the ASF" header and notice in its place.
>>
>> See <http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html> for relevant
>> information. (Note: According to this material, we can replace or
>> move the notices if Apache has written permission to do so. We need
>> to be advised on what the actual case is and how to deal with it.
>> I.e., do we make NOTICE files, can we remove the in-header copyright
>> notices, etc.)
>>
>> - Dennis
>>
>> PS: I notice in the Podling Mentor guide that the Cryptography Audit
>> must be done at once (and should have been done before committing
>> the code to SVN). See the draft information at <http://incubator.apache.org/guides/mentor.html#bootstrap
>> >.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Stephan Bergmann [mailto:stephan.bergmann.secondary@googlemail.com
>> ]
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 04:07
>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [Repo][Proposal]After the code is checked in to SVN
>>
>> [ ... ]
>>
>> Two more steps that we might want to phase in somewhere are:
>>
>> (a) Replace the Oracle/LGPLv3 license headers in all the relevant
>> files with Apache/AL2 ones. Is this maybe legally important to do
>> as early as possible, or can it wait until end-of-incubation?
>> Probably makes no sense to do before phase 5, anyway.
>>
>> [ ... ]
>>
>> -Stephan=
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>
>
> Craig L Russell
> Secretary, Apache Software Foundation
> clr@apache.org http://db.apache.org/jdo
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: [Repo][Proposal] NOT SO FAST ON CHANGING HEADERS
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@robweir.com>.
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 11:44 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<de...@acm.org> wrote:
> OK,
>
> I assume that, for an Apache Project, the standard license header is the one without copyright notices and beginning "Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more contributor license agreements." Is that correct for code under the CGA?
>
> I don't know what the list of files in the grant looks like but there are nearly 100,000 individual artifacts in that code base.
>
> Andrew Rist is the only Apache OpenOffice.org committer of those you named. Peter Korn was invited and declined.
>
> I'll check with Andrew to see if he is able to do this.
>
I think we should put this on hold for now. As I understand it,
Oracle is working on amending their SGA to include additional files
that were missed in their initial contribution. If we change file
headers, it should be only for those files that are in the original or
amended SGA. We just can't blast through the directory changing
headers. Some files will be 3rd party files not included in the SGA.
And some may be Oracle files missing from the SGA. So the intact
header information, from Sun, Oracle as well as 3rd party, is
essential to our success IP review of this code base and for
identifying whether files are missing from the SGA. So let's resolve
that before we start changing headers. It will need to be done before
we do a release. But it doesn't need to be rushed or done first.
-Rob
> - Dennis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Craig L Russell [mailto:craig.russell@oracle.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 06:28
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> Subject: Re: [Repo][Proposal] NOT SO FAST ON CHANGING HEADERS
>
> On Aug 28, 2011, at 1:37 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> We have finally brought a large chunk of the OpenOffice.org code
>> base over to the Apache SVN under our incubator portion of the code
>> tree.
>>
>> There are still notices on those files, such as the one copied below.
>>
>> We want to be careful in handling these files appropriately. My
>> questions are
>>
>> 1. Can we replace these notices with the standard "Code Developed at
>> Apache" header?
>
> Since we have two committers who are from Oracle, and the clear intent
> of the Oracle code grant is to allow all the files to be released
> under an Apache license, I'd propose that Andrew Rist or Peter Korn
> make the header replacements for all the files listed in the grant.
>
> That is, remove the Oracle copyright notice/license and replace it
> with the standard Apache license header.
>
> Craig
>
>
>>
>> 2. Along with (1), should we create a NOTICE concerning the origin
>> of the code? (Suggested wording would help).
>>
>> 3. Is there anything else we should be doing that is in line with
>> any particulars of the SGA for this code?
>>
>> We clearly can't handle this as third party code, because the
>> license is not compatible.
>>
>> - Dennis
>>
>> The current notice:
>> /
>> *************************************************************************
>> *
>> * DO NOT ALTER OR REMOVE COPYRIGHT NOTICES OR THIS FILE HEADER.
>> *
>> * Copyright 2000, 2010 Oracle and/or its affiliates.
>> *
>> * OpenOffice.org - a multi-platform office productivity suite
>> *
>> * This file is part of OpenOffice.org.
>> *
>> * OpenOffice.org is free software: you can redistribute it and/or
>> modify
>> * it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License
>> version 3
>> * only, as published by the Free Software Foundation.
>> *
>> * OpenOffice.org is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
>> * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
>> * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
>> * GNU Lesser General Public License version 3 for more details
>> * (a copy is included in the LICENSE file that accompanied this code).
>> *
>> * You should have received a copy of the GNU Lesser General Public
>> License
>> * version 3 along with OpenOffice.org. If not, see
>> * <http://www.openoffice.org/license.html>
>> * for a copy of the LGPLv3 License.
>> *
>> ************************************************************************/
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:orcmid@apache.org]
>> Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2011 12:18
>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Cc: license-discuss@apache.org
>> Subject: RE: [Repo][Proposal] NOT SO FAST ON CHANGING HEADERS
>>
>> Item (a, below) did not strike me as important until I saw it again
>> while looking for the information about the missing/problem files in
>> the SVN import from Mercurial.
>>
>> There are special rules for dealing with headers in third-party
>> software and in software under an SGA. We need to follow those.
>>
>> In particular, the general way that headers are changed in code
>> under an SGA is by the contributor changing them, because they have
>> the right to do so as the copyright holder.
>>
>> Since that has not been done, we need some guidance on what to do
>> with the headers on the current files.
>>
>> My concern is that we need may need a modification of the DO NOT
>> ALTER OR REMOVE ... copyright notice, and the license and disclaimer
>> header, but we can't just paste the stock ALv2 "Code Developed at
>> the ASF" header and notice in its place.
>>
>> See <http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html> for relevant
>> information. (Note: According to this material, we can replace or
>> move the notices if Apache has written permission to do so. We need
>> to be advised on what the actual case is and how to deal with it.
>> I.e., do we make NOTICE files, can we remove the in-header copyright
>> notices, etc.)
>>
>> - Dennis
>>
>> PS: I notice in the Podling Mentor guide that the Cryptography Audit
>> must be done at once (and should have been done before committing
>> the code to SVN). See the draft information at <http://incubator.apache.org/guides/mentor.html#bootstrap
>> >.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Stephan Bergmann [mailto:stephan.bergmann.secondary@googlemail.com
>> ]
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 04:07
>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [Repo][Proposal]After the code is checked in to SVN
>>
>> [ ... ]
>>
>> Two more steps that we might want to phase in somewhere are:
>>
>> (a) Replace the Oracle/LGPLv3 license headers in all the relevant
>> files with Apache/AL2 ones. Is this maybe legally important to do
>> as early as possible, or can it wait until end-of-incubation?
>> Probably makes no sense to do before phase 5, anyway.
>>
>> [ ... ]
>>
>> -Stephan=
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>
>
> Craig L Russell
> Secretary, Apache Software Foundation
> clr@apache.org http://db.apache.org/jdo
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
RE: [Repo][Proposal] NOT SO FAST ON CHANGING HEADERS
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
OK,
I assume that, for an Apache Project, the standard license header is the one without copyright notices and beginning "Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more contributor license agreements." Is that correct for code under the CGA?
I don't know what the list of files in the grant looks like but there are nearly 100,000 individual artifacts in that code base.
Andrew Rist is the only Apache OpenOffice.org committer of those you named. Peter Korn was invited and declined.
I'll check with Andrew to see if he is able to do this.
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Craig L Russell [mailto:craig.russell@oracle.com]
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 06:28
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Subject: Re: [Repo][Proposal] NOT SO FAST ON CHANGING HEADERS
On Aug 28, 2011, at 1:37 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>
>
> We have finally brought a large chunk of the OpenOffice.org code
> base over to the Apache SVN under our incubator portion of the code
> tree.
>
> There are still notices on those files, such as the one copied below.
>
> We want to be careful in handling these files appropriately. My
> questions are
>
> 1. Can we replace these notices with the standard "Code Developed at
> Apache" header?
Since we have two committers who are from Oracle, and the clear intent
of the Oracle code grant is to allow all the files to be released
under an Apache license, I'd propose that Andrew Rist or Peter Korn
make the header replacements for all the files listed in the grant.
That is, remove the Oracle copyright notice/license and replace it
with the standard Apache license header.
Craig
>
> 2. Along with (1), should we create a NOTICE concerning the origin
> of the code? (Suggested wording would help).
>
> 3. Is there anything else we should be doing that is in line with
> any particulars of the SGA for this code?
>
> We clearly can't handle this as third party code, because the
> license is not compatible.
>
> - Dennis
>
> The current notice:
> /
> *************************************************************************
> *
> * DO NOT ALTER OR REMOVE COPYRIGHT NOTICES OR THIS FILE HEADER.
> *
> * Copyright 2000, 2010 Oracle and/or its affiliates.
> *
> * OpenOffice.org - a multi-platform office productivity suite
> *
> * This file is part of OpenOffice.org.
> *
> * OpenOffice.org is free software: you can redistribute it and/or
> modify
> * it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License
> version 3
> * only, as published by the Free Software Foundation.
> *
> * OpenOffice.org is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
> * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
> * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
> * GNU Lesser General Public License version 3 for more details
> * (a copy is included in the LICENSE file that accompanied this code).
> *
> * You should have received a copy of the GNU Lesser General Public
> License
> * version 3 along with OpenOffice.org. If not, see
> * <http://www.openoffice.org/license.html>
> * for a copy of the LGPLv3 License.
> *
> ************************************************************************/
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:orcmid@apache.org]
> Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2011 12:18
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: license-discuss@apache.org
> Subject: RE: [Repo][Proposal] NOT SO FAST ON CHANGING HEADERS
>
> Item (a, below) did not strike me as important until I saw it again
> while looking for the information about the missing/problem files in
> the SVN import from Mercurial.
>
> There are special rules for dealing with headers in third-party
> software and in software under an SGA. We need to follow those.
>
> In particular, the general way that headers are changed in code
> under an SGA is by the contributor changing them, because they have
> the right to do so as the copyright holder.
>
> Since that has not been done, we need some guidance on what to do
> with the headers on the current files.
>
> My concern is that we need may need a modification of the DO NOT
> ALTER OR REMOVE ... copyright notice, and the license and disclaimer
> header, but we can't just paste the stock ALv2 "Code Developed at
> the ASF" header and notice in its place.
>
> See <http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html> for relevant
> information. (Note: According to this material, we can replace or
> move the notices if Apache has written permission to do so. We need
> to be advised on what the actual case is and how to deal with it.
> I.e., do we make NOTICE files, can we remove the in-header copyright
> notices, etc.)
>
> - Dennis
>
> PS: I notice in the Podling Mentor guide that the Cryptography Audit
> must be done at once (and should have been done before committing
> the code to SVN). See the draft information at <http://incubator.apache.org/guides/mentor.html#bootstrap
> >.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephan Bergmann [mailto:stephan.bergmann.secondary@googlemail.com
> ]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 04:07
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [Repo][Proposal]After the code is checked in to SVN
>
> [ ... ]
>
> Two more steps that we might want to phase in somewhere are:
>
> (a) Replace the Oracle/LGPLv3 license headers in all the relevant
> files with Apache/AL2 ones. Is this maybe legally important to do
> as early as possible, or can it wait until end-of-incubation?
> Probably makes no sense to do before phase 5, anyway.
>
> [ ... ]
>
> -Stephan=
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
Craig L Russell
Secretary, Apache Software Foundation
clr@apache.org http://db.apache.org/jdo
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: [Repo][Proposal] NOT SO FAST ON CHANGING HEADERS
Posted by Craig L Russell <cr...@oracle.com>.
On Aug 28, 2011, at 1:37 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>
>
> We have finally brought a large chunk of the OpenOffice.org code
> base over to the Apache SVN under our incubator portion of the code
> tree.
>
> There are still notices on those files, such as the one copied below.
>
> We want to be careful in handling these files appropriately. My
> questions are
>
> 1. Can we replace these notices with the standard "Code Developed at
> Apache" header?
Since we have two committers who are from Oracle, and the clear intent
of the Oracle code grant is to allow all the files to be released
under an Apache license, I'd propose that Andrew Rist or Peter Korn
make the header replacements for all the files listed in the grant.
That is, remove the Oracle copyright notice/license and replace it
with the standard Apache license header.
Craig
>
> 2. Along with (1), should we create a NOTICE concerning the origin
> of the code? (Suggested wording would help).
>
> 3. Is there anything else we should be doing that is in line with
> any particulars of the SGA for this code?
>
> We clearly can't handle this as third party code, because the
> license is not compatible.
>
> - Dennis
>
> The current notice:
> /
> *************************************************************************
> *
> * DO NOT ALTER OR REMOVE COPYRIGHT NOTICES OR THIS FILE HEADER.
> *
> * Copyright 2000, 2010 Oracle and/or its affiliates.
> *
> * OpenOffice.org - a multi-platform office productivity suite
> *
> * This file is part of OpenOffice.org.
> *
> * OpenOffice.org is free software: you can redistribute it and/or
> modify
> * it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License
> version 3
> * only, as published by the Free Software Foundation.
> *
> * OpenOffice.org is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
> * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
> * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
> * GNU Lesser General Public License version 3 for more details
> * (a copy is included in the LICENSE file that accompanied this code).
> *
> * You should have received a copy of the GNU Lesser General Public
> License
> * version 3 along with OpenOffice.org. If not, see
> * <http://www.openoffice.org/license.html>
> * for a copy of the LGPLv3 License.
> *
> ************************************************************************/
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:orcmid@apache.org]
> Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2011 12:18
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: license-discuss@apache.org
> Subject: RE: [Repo][Proposal] NOT SO FAST ON CHANGING HEADERS
>
> Item (a, below) did not strike me as important until I saw it again
> while looking for the information about the missing/problem files in
> the SVN import from Mercurial.
>
> There are special rules for dealing with headers in third-party
> software and in software under an SGA. We need to follow those.
>
> In particular, the general way that headers are changed in code
> under an SGA is by the contributor changing them, because they have
> the right to do so as the copyright holder.
>
> Since that has not been done, we need some guidance on what to do
> with the headers on the current files.
>
> My concern is that we need may need a modification of the DO NOT
> ALTER OR REMOVE ... copyright notice, and the license and disclaimer
> header, but we can't just paste the stock ALv2 "Code Developed at
> the ASF" header and notice in its place.
>
> See <http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html> for relevant
> information. (Note: According to this material, we can replace or
> move the notices if Apache has written permission to do so. We need
> to be advised on what the actual case is and how to deal with it.
> I.e., do we make NOTICE files, can we remove the in-header copyright
> notices, etc.)
>
> - Dennis
>
> PS: I notice in the Podling Mentor guide that the Cryptography Audit
> must be done at once (and should have been done before committing
> the code to SVN). See the draft information at <http://incubator.apache.org/guides/mentor.html#bootstrap
> >.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephan Bergmann [mailto:stephan.bergmann.secondary@googlemail.com
> ]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 04:07
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [Repo][Proposal]After the code is checked in to SVN
>
> [ ... ]
>
> Two more steps that we might want to phase in somewhere are:
>
> (a) Replace the Oracle/LGPLv3 license headers in all the relevant
> files with Apache/AL2 ones. Is this maybe legally important to do
> as early as possible, or can it wait until end-of-incubation?
> Probably makes no sense to do before phase 5, anyway.
>
> [ ... ]
>
> -Stephan=
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
Craig L Russell
Secretary, Apache Software Foundation
clr@apache.org http://db.apache.org/jdo
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: FW: [Repo][Proposal] NOT SO FAST ON CHANGING HEADERS
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<de...@acm.org> wrote:
>
> We have finally brought a large chunk of the OpenOffice.org code base over to the Apache SVN under our incubator portion of the code tree.
>
> There are still notices on those files, such as the one copied below.
>
> We want to be careful in handling these files appropriately. My questions are
>
> 1. Can we replace these notices with the standard "Code Developed at Apache" header?
There are Oracle employees participating in this podling. Any chance
that one of them could make this change? If so, nothing more will
need to be done.
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
FW: [Repo][Proposal] NOT SO FAST ON CHANGING HEADERS
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
We have finally brought a large chunk of the OpenOffice.org code base over to the Apache SVN under our incubator portion of the code tree.
There are still notices on those files, such as the one copied below.
We want to be careful in handling these files appropriately. My questions are
1. Can we replace these notices with the standard "Code Developed at Apache" header?
2. Along with (1), should we create a NOTICE concerning the origin of the code? (Suggested wording would help).
3. Is there anything else we should be doing that is in line with any particulars of the SGA for this code?
We clearly can't handle this as third party code, because the license is not compatible.
- Dennis
The current notice:
/*************************************************************************
*
* DO NOT ALTER OR REMOVE COPYRIGHT NOTICES OR THIS FILE HEADER.
*
* Copyright 2000, 2010 Oracle and/or its affiliates.
*
* OpenOffice.org - a multi-platform office productivity suite
*
* This file is part of OpenOffice.org.
*
* OpenOffice.org is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
* it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License version 3
* only, as published by the Free Software Foundation.
*
* OpenOffice.org is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
* but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
* MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
* GNU Lesser General Public License version 3 for more details
* (a copy is included in the LICENSE file that accompanied this code).
*
* You should have received a copy of the GNU Lesser General Public License
* version 3 along with OpenOffice.org. If not, see
* <http://www.openoffice.org/license.html>
* for a copy of the LGPLv3 License.
*
************************************************************************/
-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:orcmid@apache.org]
Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2011 12:18
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Cc: license-discuss@apache.org
Subject: RE: [Repo][Proposal] NOT SO FAST ON CHANGING HEADERS
Item (a, below) did not strike me as important until I saw it again while looking for the information about the missing/problem files in the SVN import from Mercurial.
There are special rules for dealing with headers in third-party software and in software under an SGA. We need to follow those.
In particular, the general way that headers are changed in code under an SGA is by the contributor changing them, because they have the right to do so as the copyright holder.
Since that has not been done, we need some guidance on what to do with the headers on the current files.
My concern is that we need may need a modification of the DO NOT ALTER OR REMOVE ... copyright notice, and the license and disclaimer header, but we can't just paste the stock ALv2 "Code Developed at the ASF" header and notice in its place.
See <http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html> for relevant information. (Note: According to this material, we can replace or move the notices if Apache has written permission to do so. We need to be advised on what the actual case is and how to deal with it. I.e., do we make NOTICE files, can we remove the in-header copyright notices, etc.)
- Dennis
PS: I notice in the Podling Mentor guide that the Cryptography Audit must be done at once (and should have been done before committing the code to SVN). See the draft information at <http://incubator.apache.org/guides/mentor.html#bootstrap>.
-----Original Message-----
From: Stephan Bergmann [mailto:stephan.bergmann.secondary@googlemail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 04:07
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Repo][Proposal]After the code is checked in to SVN
[ ... ]
Two more steps that we might want to phase in somewhere are:
(a) Replace the Oracle/LGPLv3 license headers in all the relevant files with Apache/AL2 ones. Is this maybe legally important to do as early as possible, or can it wait until end-of-incubation? Probably makes no sense to do before phase 5, anyway.
[ ... ]
-Stephan=
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org