Re: [digester] relicensing to apache2.0

[Emmanuel Bourg <eb...@micropole-univers.com>]

Simon Kitching wrote:

> Note: I've grepped for copyright statements in Digester, and found none
> other than the ASF one. There are some @author statements for people who
> are not apache committers, but those people were either contributing new
> files with apache licenses/copyrights on the top, or providing patches
> to files already copyrighted ASF so I can't see any legal issues (IANAL
> and all that).

Even if non Apache commiters contributed code under the ASL 1.1 the 
condition 1 prevents relicensing ("Redistributions of source code must 
retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the 
following disclaimer."). I'm persuaded there is a confusion between the 
copyright of the license and the copyright of the work, when i read :

  * The Apache Software License, Version 1.1
  *
  * Copyright (c) 2000 The Apache Software Foundation.  All rights
  * reserved.

I understand the copyright notice is related to the license, which can 
not be modified (All rights reserved) but not to the source code. That 
means that contributing code with the ASL does *not* transfert the 
copyright to the ASF. This confusion has been "fixed" in the ASL 2.0, 
there is now a different copyright for the license and for the code.

I still feel bad with this automated mass relicensing, it looks too 
hasty to me compared to relicensings performed on others projets, 
Mozilla spent more than 1 year to change its license. I think there 
should be a thorough code review identifying all contributors and 
ensuring they have either signed the CLA or agreed on the relicensing.

I hope someone will hear me :)

Emmanuel Bourg

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org

Re: [digester] relicensing to apache2.0

[robert burrell donkin <ro...@blueyonder.co.uk>]

On 1 Mar 2004, at 10:49, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:

<snip>

> I still feel bad with this automated mass relicensing, it looks too 
> hasty to me compared to relicensings performed on others projets, 
> Mozilla spent more than 1 year to change its license. I think there 
> should be a thorough code review identifying all contributors and 
> ensuring they have either signed the CLA or agreed on the relicensing.
>
> I hope someone will hear me :)

not when you're shouting on the wrong list :)

(sorry to be sounding like a broken record but this isn't an effective 
place to raise issues like this.)

FWIW the issue for the ASF is legal risk. mozilla had the financial 
backing of a huge and wealthy corporation. they can afford to fight 
long and hard in the courts. the ASF is tiny and poor, backed by a 
small number of software developers. i'm definitely willing to cut the 
ASF members a lot of slack since they are accepting a level of personal 
risk to bring you all this open source software.

- robert


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org