[jira] [Resolved] (LEGAL-626) advice on Pekko license headers and notice files

["Henri Yandell (Jira)" <ji...@apache.org>]

     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-626?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]

Henri Yandell resolved LEGAL-626.
---------------------------------
    Resolution: Fixed

> advice on Pekko license headers and notice files
> ------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LEGAL-626
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-626
>             Project: Legal Discuss
>          Issue Type: Task
>            Reporter: PJ Fanning
>            Priority: Major
>
> The Pekko incubator podling is an open source fork of Akka.
> Akka was Apache licensed but recently Lightbend changed to a commercial license. 
> [https://www.lightbend.com/blog/why-we-are-changing-the-license-for-akka]
> The initial aim is to keep the Pekko code very similar to the last Apache licensed release but to change the module names and package names to remove the Lightbend and Akka branding.
> As a team, we are struggling with the legal implications.
> There is a lot of discussion on what the license and notice file should look like and also how the the license header in source files should appear.
> We've read [https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#headers] but there is are disagreements about how to interpret the requirements.
> I have a proposal for a notice file at [https://github.com/apache/incubator-pekko/issues/38#issuecomment-1308653777]
> In terms of the license header, Lightbend have not granted the code to ASF so we can't remove the Lightbend license in the existing files. ([Example|https://github.com/apache/incubator-pekko/blob/main/akka-actor/src/main/scala/akka/AkkaVersion.scala])
> If and when we do major changes to a particular source file, could someone suggest what the license header should look like?
>  * should we just leave the Lightbend header and add the standard Apache license header below it (or above it)?
>  * should we change to a standard Apache license header but put the Lightbend copyright in it? [Proposal for this|https://github.com/apache/incubator-pekko/issues/38#issue-1441845248]
> One extra wrinkle is that there are some existing files that already have Lightbend and Google licenses ([example|https://github.com/apache/incubator-pekko/blob/main/akka-protobuf/src/main/java/akka/protobuf/ByteString.java])
> Some Pekko team members are arguing that formatting changes in a source file is a major modification/addition. Some other members argue that this only kicks in if significant functional code changes are made.
> > Minor modifications/additions to third-party source files should typically be licensed under the same terms as the rest of the third-party source for convenience. The project's PMC should deal with major modifications/additions to third-party source files on a case-by-case basis.
> Would it be possible to get a rule of thumb about what constitutes a major modification/addition?
> Some Pekko team members are arguing that it would be better to have one source file header that we can put in all source files that acknowledges the Lightbend and ASF contributions. It would certainly simplify things if we had a single header that could be applied to all files. If we leave the Lightbend licenses as is, then every code review for code changes is at risk of becoming bogged down in discussions about whether the license header needs to change in certain source files.
> *Discussion Threads*
>  * [https://github.com/apache/incubator-pekko/issues/38]
>  * [https://lists.apache.org/thread/z0r4sr4kdvmh52mlhc5porot2sh1wtok]
> Any advice on this topic would be appreciated.
>  
>  



--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org