Mailing-List: contact derby-dev-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Derby Development" <derby-dev@db.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (hermes.apache.org: local policy)
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject: RE: Derby code copyright question
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 11:50:38 -0700
Message-ID: <4C2F1577F2EF2840A9AE9EC61860C8819638E4@usseex01.amer.bea.com>
Thread-Topic: Derby code copyright question
Thread-Index: AcSa8jvmK8iO7V+iReqZII3Al67cfAAX8uOA
From: "Cliff Schmidt" <cliff@bea.com>
To: <general@incubator.apache.org>
Cc: <derby-dev@db.apache.org>

Noel J. Bergman wrote on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 12:09 AM:

> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>=20
>> I've been lurking on the Derby list, and there's a discussion
>> about code copyright.  Why isn't all the code (c) ASF?
>=20
> 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.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding Noel's statement, but the current
AL v2 does NOT include the copyright notice.  The v2 version was=20
turned into a template license so it could be used by other copyright
owners.  I think the Derby question is about the copyright notice
that should be at the top of each source file (as opposed to the
license that should be an independent file at the root of the
distribution.

IIUC, it is the ASF's policy that all copyright notices,=20
particularly in a distribution should read "Copyright xxxx The=20
Apache Software Foundation." =20

> If there is a legal issue, then IBM Legal (probably Jennifer) should
> get in touch with the ASF (probably me to start), and we'll go from
> there. Otherwise, the files should be adjusted accordingly.

While I personally think there is a better way to handle=20
copyright notices (since the software grant doesn't transfer
copyright ownership, only grants a copyright/patent license),
the ASF has recently rejected the offer of a contribution from
another BigCo, because they didn't want to change the copyright
notice to the ASF if they weren't transferring ownership.
See posts #1308-1328 in the licensing archive. =20

*BOTTOM LINE*
If the Derby community wants to get a release out soon, they=20
need to make their source file copyright notices be the standard
ASF text.  If they want to debate this policy (which I, personally,=20
would not be opposed to, but it will take more time for them), we=20
should move the discussion to the licensing list.

Cliff