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 14:35:40 GMT
I'm going to suggest that we move this conversation solely to 
licensing@, and let the Derby peeps get on with writing code.

I'll answer over on licensing@


On Sep 27, 2004, at 7:27 AM, Jennifer B Machovec wrote:

> There is a significant difference between having a contributor give ASF
> and its end-users a broad copyright and patent license grant (which 
> does
> not require ASF to distribute the code under any particular licensing
> terms) and telling the contributor that he must assign away all rights 
> of
> ownership.  Under the process that has been in place at ASF since its
> inception, a contributor can continue to use or license his code in any
> manner that he sees fit (concurrently with ASF's use of the code under 
> the
> license grant) because he retains ownership of the intellectual 
> property.
> Asking the contributor to transfer ownership to ASF would destroy these
> rights.  I imagine that a significant number of contributors would be
> reluctant to give up their rights in their creation entirely.
> As far as the issue of additional copyright holders, there can very 
> well
> be several copyright owners affiliated with a particular project.  ASF,
> for instance, generally holds copyright for the collection of works 
> that
> comprise the project.  Developers who modify ASF code hold copyright in
> the derivative works thus created.  Even though third-party copyright
> notices may not be included for all contributors, developers and 
> companies
> who have submitted code to ASF for the last several years have
> nevertheless retained the status of copyright owner for their code.  
> This
> doesn't thwart ASF from being able to demonstrate a clear provenance in
> the IP; as long as those contributors have executed CLAs or otherwise
> submitted code under documents containing broad license grants similar 
> to
> those in effect today, the scope of those grants should be sufficient 
> for
> ASF to keep doing business as usual.
> Cheers,
> Jennifer
> "Geir Magnusson Jr." <geirm@apache.org>
> 09/27/2004 09:59 AM
> Please respond to "Derby Development"
>         To:     "Derby Development" <derby-dev@db.apache.org>
>         cc:
>         Subject:        Re: Derby code copyright question
> 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
> copyright?
>> 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
> -- 
> Geir Magnusson Jr                                  +1-203-665-6437
> geirm@apache.org
Geir Magnusson Jr                                  +1-203-665-6437

View raw message