You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cayenne.apache.org by Kevin Menard <km...@servprise.com> on 2007/04/23 19:29:23 UTC
Copyright years
Are we updating the copyright years for the 1.2.x branch? Part of me
says that we should, since we still distribute the code. Part of me
says no, because the copyright should be assigned to ASF and is in fact
copyrighted to the ASF in the 2.x branch.
Some guidance would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Kevin
Re: Copyright years
Posted by Andrus Adamchik <an...@objectstyle.org>.
I guess it is just simpler to change all files at once :-)
Andrus
On Apr 23, 2007, at 8:38 PM, Mike Kienenberger wrote:
> I think legally you are only supposed to update the copyright of a
> file if you make changes to that file. However, I am not a lawyer.
>
>
> On 4/23/07, Kevin Menard <km...@servprise.com> wrote:
>> Are we updating the copyright years for the 1.2.x branch? Part of me
>> says that we should, since we still distribute the code. Part of me
>> says no, because the copyright should be assigned to ASF and is in
>> fact
>> copyrighted to the ASF in the 2.x branch.
>>
>> Some guidance would be appreciated.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Kevin
>>
>
RE: Copyright years
Posted by Kevin Menard <km...@servprise.com>.
Great. Thanks a lot.
--
Kevin
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrus Adamchik [mailto:andrus@objectstyle.org]
> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 2:21 PM
> To: dev@cayenne.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Copyright years
>
> Sorry for being vague. I just double-checked the actual code
> on the branches to see what headers we are using. So...
>
> > 1.2: Update years in headers as you update files
>
> Yes.
>
> > 2.0: Update years in headers as you update files
>
> No, actually 2.0 is using the new Apache headers with no
> copyright year mentioned, so only NOTICE file has to be updated.
>
> > 3.0: Update years in NOTICE file as any source file is updated
>
> Yes. The new headers are in place.
>
> Andrus
>
>
Re: Copyright years
Posted by Andrus Adamchik <an...@objectstyle.org>.
Sorry for being vague. I just double-checked the actual code on the
branches to see what headers we are using. So...
> 1.2: Update years in headers as you update files
Yes.
> 2.0: Update years in headers as you update files
No, actually 2.0 is using the new Apache headers with no copyright
year mentioned, so only NOTICE file has to be updated.
> 3.0: Update years in NOTICE file as any source file is updated
Yes. The new headers are in place.
Andrus
RE: Copyright years
Posted by Kevin Menard <km...@servprise.com>.
So, just so I understand properly:
1.2: Update years in headers as you update files
2.0: Update years in headers as you update files
3.0: Update years in NOTICE file as any source file is updated
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrus Adamchik [mailto:andrus@objectstyle.org]
> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 1:56 PM
> To: dev@cayenne.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Copyright years
>
>
> On Apr 23, 2007, at 8:50 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
>
> > The copyright policy of Apache changed last year so the
> copyright year
> > is only in the NOTICE part of the code. The actual code files don't
> > have a copyright year at all. They just have a license
> statement, so
> > this discussion is really only for a file or two where the actual
> > copyright notices appear.
> >
> > Craig
>
> Yeah, that's pretty cool - going forward we don't have to
> touch the entire codebase every year. Cayenne version 1.2
> that Kevin mentioned is the legacy pre-Apache stable branch
> that we maintain for our existing users. It has copyright
> year in all Java files.
>
> Andrus
>
>
>
>
Re: Copyright years
Posted by Andrus Adamchik <an...@objectstyle.org>.
On Apr 23, 2007, at 8:50 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
> The copyright policy of Apache changed last year so the copyright
> year is only in the NOTICE part of the code. The actual code files
> don't have a copyright year at all. They just have a license
> statement, so this discussion is really only for a file or two
> where the actual copyright notices appear.
>
> Craig
Yeah, that's pretty cool - going forward we don't have to touch the
entire codebase every year. Cayenne version 1.2 that Kevin mentioned
is the legacy pre-Apache stable branch that we maintain for our
existing users. It has copyright year in all Java files.
Andrus
Re: Copyright years
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
The copyright policy of Apache changed last year so the copyright
year is only in the NOTICE part of the code. The actual code files
don't have a copyright year at all. They just have a license
statement, so this discussion is really only for a file or two where
the actual copyright notices appear.
Craig
On Apr 23, 2007, at 10:45 AM, Kevin Menard wrote:
> Right. I'm only talking about files that we change, since in
> theory the
> same changes should be reflected in both 1.2.x and 2.0.x. The only
> real
> difference between them should be the different package structure.
>
> --
> Kevin
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Mike Kienenberger [mailto:mkienenb@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 1:39 PM
>> To: dev@cayenne.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Copyright years
>>
>> I think legally you are only supposed to update the copyright
>> of a file if you make changes to that file. However, I am
>> not a lawyer.
Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
RE: Copyright years
Posted by Kevin Menard <km...@servprise.com>.
Right. I'm only talking about files that we change, since in theory the
same changes should be reflected in both 1.2.x and 2.0.x. The only real
difference between them should be the different package structure.
--
Kevin
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Kienenberger [mailto:mkienenb@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 1:39 PM
> To: dev@cayenne.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Copyright years
>
> I think legally you are only supposed to update the copyright
> of a file if you make changes to that file. However, I am
> not a lawyer.
Re: Copyright years
Posted by Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com>.
I think legally you are only supposed to update the copyright of a
file if you make changes to that file. However, I am not a lawyer.
On 4/23/07, Kevin Menard <km...@servprise.com> wrote:
> Are we updating the copyright years for the 1.2.x branch? Part of me
> says that we should, since we still distribute the code. Part of me
> says no, because the copyright should be assigned to ASF and is in fact
> copyrighted to the ASF in the 2.x branch.
>
> Some guidance would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
> Kevin
>
Re: Copyright years
Posted by Andrus Adamchik <an...@objectstyle.org>.
Ideally we should for as long as 1.2 is maintained:
* 1.2 is released from SourceForge
* it does not include a few changes that we've made to make it ASF-clean
* finally, my understanding of the copyright donation to ASF is that
the original copyright is not revoked. CLA talks about "non-exclusive
[...] grant of copyright License"
Andrus
On Apr 23, 2007, at 8:29 PM, Kevin Menard wrote:
> Are we updating the copyright years for the 1.2.x branch? Part of me
> says that we should, since we still distribute the code. Part of me
> says no, because the copyright should be assigned to ASF and is in
> fact
> copyrighted to the ASF in the 2.x branch.
>
> Some guidance would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
> Kevin
>