corinthia-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Kelly <>
Subject Re: Copyright notices
Date Fri, 13 Feb 2015 09:25:26 GMT
> On 13 Feb 2015, at 3:32 pm, Dennis E. Hamilton <> wrote:
> Oops, let this sit in my draft folder for hours. I blame the wonders of oxycodone and
pain management.
> The TL;DR: You're doing great on the notices.
> Some nuances and clarification of NOTICE below.
> - Dennis
> Peter,
> Thanks for asking about this.
> I think the new notices on files are just fine (and COR-41 is totally elective but valuable
as a casual undertaking).  The probably needs an ASF notice too.
> Some ASF purists expect that NOTICE and LICENSE will appear without a .txt extension.
 I don't expect any/much push-back about that on a release, and if there were, it is probably
something that could be fixed on a following release.

My gut instinct would be to go without the extension. I noticed there was already a LICENSE.txt
there (which may have actually been my addition way back when) hence I used that. But the
instructions did say NOTICE (not NOTICE.txt), so i propose we use the former.

> After a few years watching the lists about the proper use of these files, I think you
are fine except for what might be needed for external dependencies, etc.  That can be dealt
with as platform and external-dependencies (including for incorporated source code) are handled.
> It would be useful to obtain an appraisal from the mentors on this.  I'm confident that
we have enough information to avoid marching over to discuss-legal and general-incubator to
hammer anything out.
> We will need to run RAT on the repository as part of diligence with regard to third-party
license notices and claims, and that should be done before declaring every release candidate.
 I think this can be done on an unzip of the source archive for a given release, since there
is more time to clean up IP on unreleased code/dependencies.

One other dependency which I think should also be mentioned that I don’t think has been
discussed the list or JIRA yet is showdown.js inside the Editor (inside the Editor/src/3rdparty
directory). This is a Markdown implementation written in Javascript; there’s a license.txt
in there which is the same as the original markdown program by John Gruber, which I think
is BSD-style.

This library is used when the paste command is executed in the editor and the clipboard contains
only plain text. It converts the text into HTML, assuming Markdown syntax, and then goes through
the normal paste codepath which works with HTML input.

I’m not sure if we necessarily need this dependency in Corinthia. UX Write uses it but it’s
not a fundamental requirement; it could instead be moved out into the application level (that
is, UX Write itself and any other applications build on top of the Editor library). When we
have Markdown support in DocFormats itself, an application that uses Corinthia could use DocFormats
to do the conversion to HTML on paste.

> It has been made very clear that NOTICE is not an attribution or acknowledgment file.
 It must be limited to *legally-required* notice information.  Moving your copyright notice
there is perfect under the third-party rules.  Any associated licenses that are required to
be included are appended to LICENSE, and multiple uses of common licenses only needs to appear
in LICENSE once.
> (Aside: My inclination would be to include the git commit hash for the code as it was
before you made the contribution cited in NOTICE, but I don't think that is a requirement.
 Anyone willing to do some forensic work in the git can find that point on their own, a nice
feature of Git having all history in each clone.)

Yeah the question popped into my head “how does who owns copyright over which part of the
code?” and I realised Git history is the answer. Even with the initial commit hash in place,
this serves only for UX Productivity’s contribution, and then only the contribution that
was made at the point of initial commit. Any new code that is added by myself or others still
needs to be identifiable as being under the copyright ownership of the companies/individuals
who wrote it (in case of any disputes) - something which in non-Apache projects can often
be done by looking at the names at the top of the source files, though with the Apache approach
relies on version control. But I don’t see that as a problem given how easy it is to track
the history of code through VC systems.

> I believe all of my contributions of any substance came after the move to the incubator,
although I was made a member of the UX project before that.  In any case, I have not applied
any copyright notices to files from me (except ASF notices) and I am in complete accord with
the code being licensed to the ASF.  There is no requirement to do anything in NOTICE on my
behalf.  Having a CONTRIBUTORS file would be valuable though.

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?

Dr. Peter M. Kelly

PGP key: <>
(fingerprint 5435 6718 59F0 DD1F BFA0 5E46 2523 BAA1 44AE 2966)

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message