db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel John Debrunner <...@debrunners.com>
Subject Re: Derby code copyright question
Date Wed, 15 Sep 2004 17:34:59 GMT
Noel J. Bergman wrote:

> Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
> 
> 
>>Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>>
>>>The files should all have the AL v2.  The license file
>>>provided includes the copyright.  Any other notices, such
>>>as historical credits, go into the NOTICE file.
> 
> 
>>What does 'The licence file provided includes the copyright.' mean?
> 
> 
> Sorry for not being clear.  http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html and
> the license, itself, provide an appendix containing the copyright notice to
> be placed in each file.  Every source file should have that copyright notice
> placed at the top.


To be picky the 'license itself' does not provide the appendix, it is in
a file that contains the licence, in an appendix section *below* the
term 'END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS'. It seems to me that the appendix
should not be in the license file itself, but instead on the
apply-license page.

Then in Ken's e-mail (message 362) he says that the appendix 'is
directed to non-apache groups that are using the licence to protect
*their* code, not to apache's own code'. Not sure if that is the case,
it seems like the appendix applies to anyone (including ASF) who is
using the Apache license. Especially since nowhere else on the Apache
site do those instructions exist (that I can find).

> As Ken explained in
>
http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg?listName=derby-dev@db.apache.org&
> msgNo=362, the copyright holder would be The Apache Software Foundation,
> having received a copyright grant from IBM.

I see no explanation in message 362 of why the copyright holder should
be ASF. Message 363 does contain infomation that a determination was
made 'from reviewing archives, the derby grant, and
double-checking with the incubator chair'. But not an explanation.

Also the term used by Jennifer (IBM's lawyer for ASF issues) was
'copyright license grant', not 'copyright grant'. And to repeat, for
comparision purposes, under ASL v2 terms of 'grant of copyright license'
(section 2) copyright statements must be retained (section 4c) when
redistributing.

As Jonas has said, without seeing the Derby grant it's hard to see what
the correct outcome should be, when there are opposing views.

Hopefully Geir can provide some useful information if he talks to Jennifer.


I just want to ensure that the legally correct action is taken. Who
knows who will own the original Cloudscape code copyright many years
from now and may take action against ASF if the correct assignment was
not made. [ Imagine a world in which only two software entities are
left, Microsoft and ASF, MS having bought every other company :-( ]

Dan.


Mime
View raw message