corinthia-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dennis E. Hamilton" <>
Subject RE: Copyright notices
Date Fri, 13 Feb 2015 11:12:58 GMT
 -- replying below to --
From: jan i [] 
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 01:42
Subject: Re: Copyright notices

On 13 February 2015 at 10:25, Peter Kelly <> wrote:
< [ ... ]

> If you write new code though, you still own the copyright on it, correct?
> An example would be the scripts you wrote for externals required by the
> windows build - you own these but have granted a license for their use to
> Apache, is that right?
That is nearly correct. The copyright is Apache (see the ICLA) but you have
the full right to use it. The ICLA transfers ownership to Apache, this is
so that ASF can protect you in case of problems, if you owned the code ASF
could not protect you, and ASF could not license it to others (the essence
of ALv2).

   The ownership of the copyright in the contribution is that of the 
   contributor.  You can never acquire copyright of something that is not
   your original creation (and does not infringe on what are called the
   exclusive rights of the copyright holder 
   <>). There is no transfer 
   of copyright in the iCLA (or CCLA or standard SGA).  There is only 
   licensing.  In particular, the copyright holder does not license the
   transfer of copyright to recipients of the license in the case of iCLA
   and also the ALv2.  If ASF was a copyright owner of the contributed 
   work, it could indeed make transfers to others.  Not only does the ASF
   have no desire to do that, the licenses from contributors do not give
   the ASF any power to do so regardless.
   It is important that the idea of copyright transfer and of copyright
   licensing be kept very separate.  This comes up on various lists from
   time to time.  Yet if you read the ALv2 or the iCLA, there is absolutely
   no mention of copyright transfer.


   I believe the FAQ on the ALv2 and third-party software cover this, but
   examples applicable to Corinthia might be helpful.  This is not legal
   advice.  I have no ability to offer such advice and none is intended.

   The copyright notice that makes claims about Apache Software Foundation
   copyright is only about the combination into an Apache Release, not over
   the original contribution, which always remains under the copyright of 
   the contributors (or the original copyright holders that grant the
   contributors the right to offer such a license).

   As an example, if I were to prepare a derivative of a work that is the
   copyright of another, the copyright in the retained content remains with
   the original licensor.  Whatever is new copyrightable subject matter
   in the derivative work is under that producer's copyright, and it is 
   not an infringement when a license permits derivatives and I have been 
   careful to satisfy other conditions of the license.  In the ongoing 
   dispute between Google and Oracle over the Java APIs, Google does not 
   have such a license and claims an exception in its appeal to being found
   liable for infringement of Oracle's copyright in a court of law.  It 
   remains to be seen whether Google's legal theory holds water in its 
   appeal at the US Supreme Court.

jan i.

> --
> Dr. Peter M. Kelly
> PGP key: <>
> (fingerprint 5435 6718 59F0 DD1F BFA0 5E46 2523 BAA1 44AE 2966)

View raw message