You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to derby-dev@db.apache.org by Jalud Abdulmenan <te...@rogers.com> on 2004/09/15 00:41:10 UTC
[VOTE] Change Copyright notice to ASF
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
With regard to changing the copyright notices, the only issue to resolve
is to change or not the copyright notices in the source code files.
To resolve the issue the Apache way, I propose a consensus approval
vote. We can collate the result next Wednesday September 28.
[ ] Option 1: All source code files will only have the following
copyright statement.
CCCC-YYYY are the years found on each file
/*
*
* Copyright CCCC-YYYY IBM Corp.
* Copyright 2004 The Apache Software Foundation.
*
* Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
* you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
* You may obtain a copy of the License at
*
* http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
*
* Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
* distributed under the License is distributed on an ""AS IS"" BASIS,
* WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
* See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
* limitations under the License.
*
*/
[ ] Option 2: All source code files will keep the existing copyright
notices.
Jalud,
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFBR3OG2MOhC3LM/1oRAt1OAJ92YF9beJgpPblE1QK4jBI7akpzlwCdHn22
0tDIe3eGpCMhmkWilCiCkaQ=
=qSZQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[VOTE] Change Copyright notice to ASF
Posted by Jalud Abdulmenan <te...@rogers.com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
If the issue is just the "re-formatting" of the IBM copyright statement
line, then I think we have achieved consensus and do not need a vote.
However, in the spirit of the Apache way and to allow everyone to
express themselves on the topic, here is the vote again. Closing date
remains Wed Sept 22.
The difference between Option 1 and Option 2 is that Option 1 follows
ASF guidelines while Option 2 keeps the original IBM copyright statement
line.
Please, disregard the difference in the order of copyright statement
lines between Option 1 and 2. I wanted to present Option 2 as provided.
[ ] Option 1: All source code files will only have the following
copyright statement.
CCCC-YYYY are the years found on each file
/*
*
* Copyright 2004 The Apache Software Foundation.
* Copyright CCCC-YYYY IBM Corp.
*
* Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
* you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
* You may obtain a copy of the License at
*
* http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
*
* Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
* distributed under the License is distributed on an ""AS IS"" BASIS,
* WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
* See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
* limitations under the License.
*
*/
[ ] Option 2: All source code files will only have the following
copyright statement.
CCCC-YYYY are the years found on each file
/*
*
* (C) Copyright IBM Corp. CCCC, YYYY.
* Copyright 2004 The Apache Software Foundation.
*
* Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
* you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
* You may obtain a copy of the License at
*
* http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
*
* Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
* distributed under the License is distributed on an ""AS IS"" BASIS,
* WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
* See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
* limitations under the License.
*
*/
Jalud,
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFBR5qE2MOhC3LM/1oRAmYyAJ4gOtFP9MTYy8BhtfV6Y6lAlBC0tQCgtdYG
r7tIDQoVUqc6o4Zyp0/2mZk=
=PBcI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: [VOTE] Change Copyright notice to ASF
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@gluecode.com>.
On Sep 14, 2004, at 6:38 PM, Jalud Abdulmenan wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>
>> I don't understand - has IBM required that we keep IBM copyright on
>> the
>> source?
>>
>
> Geir, I am not privy to any discussion between IBM and ASF. However, we
> are including the IBM copyright statement line, to achieve consensus
> while abiding by ASF copyright guidelines.
I'm familiar with some of the discussion :) and I'd like to figure this
one out, if this was IBM's intention, or something slipped through the
cracks.
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m)
geir@4quarters.com
Re: [VOTE] Change Copyright notice to ASF
Posted by Jalud Abdulmenan <te...@rogers.com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
John McNally wrote:
> Jalud Abdulmenan wrote:
>
>>
>> However, we
>> are including the IBM copyright statement line, to achieve consensus
>> while abiding by ASF copyright guidelines.
>>
>>
>>
>
> In all previous instances that I am aware of code that has been donated
> to the ASF, previous copyright declarations have been dropped. IBM
> still does have a version of the files in which they have copyright, but
> the copyright holder for the files in a ASF repository is the ASF.
>
> I'm pretty sure there is legal reasoning behind the way I've seen it
> done in the past, but I don't really know what those reasons are. I
> think it probably makes sense to clarify if either option 1 or option 2
> are really acceptable before continuing the vote. But if not, please do
> so before actually performing the work.
>
> John McNally
>
Personally, I prefer to only have the ASF copyright notice in the source
code files and to have the IBM copyright notice in the NOTICE file.
However, based on the previous discussions on this topic, there seem to
be a strong support among the Derby dev community to keep the IBM
copyright notice.
To build a community around Derby and to have an official release, the
copyright notice in the source code files need to change until those
with the expertise and experience make their pronouncements on the final
copyright notice.
In the interim, I am proposing a solution that will allow us to have an
official release as well as foster a community around Derby.
The fact that Derby is in incubation and the lack of clear disapproval
in both the ASF license http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 and
the how-to of the ASF license
http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html gives us some flexibility
in using the proposed interim solution.
Jalud,
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFBR7JN2MOhC3LM/1oRAqBxAJ4zFUTHzJL9h2qKnxDdyuNoKeBArACgvvnY
I2EqMVbavz2ndhJzBZPBh7E=
=uTlH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: [VOTE] Change Copyright notice to ASF
Posted by John McNally <jm...@collab.net>.
Jalud Abdulmenan wrote:
>
> However, we
>are including the IBM copyright statement line, to achieve consensus
>while abiding by ASF copyright guidelines.
>
>
>
In all previous instances that I am aware of code that has been donated
to the ASF, previous copyright declarations have been dropped. IBM
still does have a version of the files in which they have copyright, but
the copyright holder for the files in a ASF repository is the ASF.
I'm pretty sure there is legal reasoning behind the way I've seen it
done in the past, but I don't really know what those reasons are. I
think it probably makes sense to clarify if either option 1 or option 2
are really acceptable before continuing the vote. But if not, please do
so before actually performing the work.
John McNally
Re: [VOTE] Change Copyright notice to ASF
Posted by Jalud Abdulmenan <te...@rogers.com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
> I don't understand - has IBM required that we keep IBM copyright on the
> source?
>
Geir, I am not privy to any discussion between IBM and ASF. However, we
are including the IBM copyright statement line, to achieve consensus
while abiding by ASF copyright guidelines.
Jonas S Karlsson wrote:
> Thus I vote for Option 1:
> (i.e. that we should use the apache format of the copyright notice)
>
> +1
>
> (however I'd like to keep the apache on top, since it will have later
> years and will be updated "frequently", and it is the most relevant
> one)
>
Jonas, I am counting your earlier vote for Option 1. You do not need to
re-vote. It make sense to keep the ASF notice on top, so I moved it up.
Jalud,
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFBR50R2MOhC3LM/1oRAoSXAJ9aWaewIBSvtcN3E6J4LE/NBpCU4QCg6gND
IAPtWY7cbHeCyklfr/waTkk=
=YlMt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: [VOTE] Change Copyright notice to ASF
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
>
> For this specific vote, I'm still not sure if a vote is the correct
> approach. If we need to retain copyright notices then option 2) is the
> only choice. I think "retain" could only mean leave as-is, not 'keep a
> modified version'. It may be more a legal decision than a community one.
no, a vote isn't the way to go. since getting the files cleaned
up is one of the graduation criteria, it would essentially be a vote
on whether to ever graduate or not. :-)
see the bottom of http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt
note that the 'fill in the copyright owner' aspect is directed to
non-apache groups that are using the licence to protect *their* code,
not to apache's own code.
the copyright notice in the files needs to change to:
Copyright 2004 The Apache Software Foundation
Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
You may obtain a copy of the License at
http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
limitations under the License.
information about ibm's involvement needs to go into a NOTICE file; see
http://www.apache.org/licenses/example-NOTICE.txt for an example.
both a LICENCE and a NOTICE file should be at the top level of the
source code repository, *and* in any binary distributions.
- --
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQCVAwUBQUgaIJrNPMCpn3XdAQE0HgP9G2I0q/OFc+7tPyt3Wu3gY9YnOZx8zWTf
BHXSSs5CfqqsUQIDpwpIcSlr/d+wW0OgNJ2gEvM7eGb9uwMejaMud18NBluOkyDe
FL6aQYSTj+jqKxVcfQd21jwMPImU22VmVD2IhJnBGXY/i1WS+8Awo/JnyEcgQw0P
8P0VBz1E6lQ=
=OaDc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: [VOTE] Change Copyright notice to ASF
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@gluecode.com>.
On Sep 14, 2004, at 8:31 PM, Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>> I don't understand - has IBM required that we keep IBM copyright on
>> the
>> source?
>
>
> As I understand from the IBM lawyer who deals with ASF, IBM did not
> assign copyright to ASF of the Cloudscape/Derby code, but gave ASF a
> "copyright license grant".
I'll go ask her :)
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m)
geir@4quarters.com
Re: [VOTE] Change Copyright notice to ASF
Posted by Daniel John Debrunner <dj...@debrunners.com>.
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> I don't understand - has IBM required that we keep IBM copyright on the
> source?
As I understand from the IBM lawyer who deals with ASF, IBM did not
assign copyright to ASF of the Cloudscape/Derby code, but gave ASF a
"copyright license grant".
Given the current issues around open source (caused by SCO), it seems
that ASF (in terms of the Derby community) should ensure that the Derby
handover is handled correctly. If the "copyright licence grant" allows
ASF to remove the IBM copyright, according to an ASF laywer, then it
could be removed. To remove it based upon guesswork just seems wrong.
If you look at section 4c) of the Apache licence 2.0, which includes a
grant of copyright license, for comparision, you will see that it states
that copyright notices must be retained on re-distribution.
We can make progress on most of applying the ASF license by following
Jalud's and Jonas's e-mails. That would leave the code with a IBM and
Apache copyright. This specific issue (removing the IBM copyright) needs
to be addressed one way or the other before Derby can graduate.
For this specific vote, I'm still not sure if a vote is the correct
approach. If we need to retain copyright notices then option 2) is the
only choice. I think "retain" could only mean leave as-is, not 'keep a
modified version'. It may be more a legal decision than a community one.
Dan.
Re: [VOTE] Change Copyright notice to ASF
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@gluecode.com>.
On Sep 14, 2004, at 5:47 PM, Jonas S Karlsson wrote:
>
> Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
>> Maybe the exact form doesn't matter, maybe it does?
>> Can someone re-format an existing copyright notice to their own style?
>
> I don't think the *style* of a copyright notice is what makes it
> legally
> binding. I see it mostly as information/reminder.
>
> In my opinion this should suffice:
> - IBM will have copyright notice in the files contributed to ASF by
> IBM.
> - The format of the copyright notice is as suggested by ASF for
> contributed code.
>
> This should keep "IBM" happy as it preserves the copyright ownership
> for IBM,
> as well as follows "ASF" guidlines about copyright notices.
I don't understand - has IBM required that we keep IBM copyright on the
source?
--
Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m)
geir@4quarters.com
Re: [VOTE] Change Copyright notice to ASF
Posted by Jonas S Karlsson <js...@yesco.org>.
Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
> Maybe the exact form doesn't matter, maybe it does?
> Can someone re-format an existing copyright notice to their own style?
I don't think the *style* of a copyright notice is what makes it legally
binding. I see it mostly as information/reminder.
In my opinion this should suffice:
- IBM will have copyright notice in the files contributed to ASF by IBM.
- The format of the copyright notice is as suggested by ASF for contributed code.
This should keep "IBM" happy as it preserves the copyright ownership for IBM,
as well as follows "ASF" guidlines about copyright notices.
Thus I vote for Option 1:
(i.e. that we should use the apache format of the copyright notice)
+1
(however I'd like to keep the apache on top, since it will have later
years and will be updated "frequently", and it is the most relevant
one)
like:
/*
*
* Copyright 2004 The Apache Software Foundation.
* Copyright CCCC-YYYY IBM Corp.
*
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> aaaand.. the answer is: replace the ibm notices with asf ones.
Well, since I'm not really a rodent, and some very large animals are
involved, I'll decline to comment on that. However, it makes me think
of a story of a mouse and an elephant, pick your favourite one...
/Jonas
Re: [VOTE] Change Copyright notice to ASF
Posted by Daniel John Debrunner <dj...@debrunners.com>.
Jalud Abdulmenan wrote:
> With regard to changing the copyright notices, the only issue to resolve
> is to change or not the copyright notices in the source code files.
>
> To resolve the issue the Apache way, I propose a consensus approval
> vote. We can collate the result next Wednesday September 28.
>
> [ ] Option 1: All source code files will only have the following
> copyright statement.
> CCCC-YYYY are the years found on each file
[example snipped]
>
> [ ] Option 2: All source code files will keep the existing copyright
> notices.
I don't think this vote is clear, there is no example for option 2 so
it's hard to tell exactly what we are voting for.
It seems like you are saying the existing IBM notices for licence and
copyright should remain. I don't think anyone has proposed that. I have
been saying that the single IBM copyright statement should remain in the
form that IBM wrote, since it is defining a copyright owned by IBM.
Thus my example would be
/*
*
* (C) Copyright IBM Corp. CCCC, YYYY.
* Copyright 2004 The Apache Software Foundation.
*
* Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
* you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
* You may obtain a copy of the License at
*
* http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
*
* Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
* distributed under the License is distributed on an ""AS IS"" BASIS,
* WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
* See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
* limitations under the License.
*
*/
Maybe the exact form doesn't matter, maybe it does?
Can someone re-format an existing copyright notice to their own style?
Dan.