db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Derby code copyright question
Date Mon, 27 Sep 2004 13:59:42 GMT

On Sep 26, 2004, at 6:20 PM, Daniel John Debrunner wrote:

> Hash: SHA1
> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>> On Sep 26, 2004, at 11:37 AM, Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>>> Traditionally, the only time we distribute code under someone else's
>>>> copyright is when we are including other works as a convenience for 
>>>>  our
>>>> users, such as packaging something in a distribution.  Otherwise, we
>>>> tend not to host projects owned by other entities.  Sourceforge is  
>>>> good
>>>> for that.
>>> Incorrect.
>> Not "Incorrect".  Show me software in the ASF that is not (c) ASF,
>> besides standard APIs or such.  We may have attributed (c) ASF by
>> mistake, or incorrectly, but it is all (c) ASF except for inclusions 
>> of
>> outside works for packaging convenience.
> Geir, I think we must be misunderstanding each other.
> All code distributed by ASF may only have (C) ASF notices but that does
> not change the fact that the code does have additional copyright
> holders. I thought you were claiming that ASF only distributed code
> where the only copyright holder was ASF.

You can't really have additional copyright holders, if I understand 
copyright law correctly.  You can have licensees.  I'll be the first to 
admit that I had this wrong before this came up.  I thought that the 
ASF had free and clear copyright ownership, and the contributor did 
too.  Thus, the ASF was free to manage the code in the way that we saw 
fit - for example, we could change the license under which that code 
was distributed - the license for anything and everything in the 
distro.  I don't believe we can do that with derby if it's (c) IBM 
unless we get another agreement from IBM allowing us to do that.  I 
don't want to go down that road because of the administrative burden 
that would place on the ASF.

I'm just baffled why this is such a problem - why can't IBM just assign 

> Derby wants to follow existing ASF practices, I'm now no longer have 
> any
> idea what folks are objecting to. NOTICES file seems to be the new
> issue, but again Derby wants to follow existing ASF practice, as seen 
> in
> the Xerces Java notice file and the Beehive notice file.

I guess the question I have, looking at Xerces, and I as a non-lawyer 
read it this way

"Xerces is (c) ASF in its entirety, and we're giving credit to IBM and 
Sun for contributions to this work that were *originally* (c) IBM or 
(c) SUNW"

The implication to this non-lawyer was *originally* (c) IBM but isn't 
now - it's wholly (c) ASF.  So if I have a problem, I talk to ASF.  I 
don't need to rope in Sun and IBM.

I think that it serves everyones interest to keep things clear and 
simple.  One of the things we strive to do at the ASF is provide 
software with clear IP provenance that doesn't require our users to 
deal with any other organization for any issues surrounding the 
distributed work.

I think everyone involved in this issue feels that is a worthy 
objective of the ASF, so I just don't grok the pushback we're getting 
on this.


Geir Magnusson Jr                                  +1-203-665-6437

View raw message