db-derby-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From <de...@segel.com>
Subject RE: Proposal for 10.2 release schedule
Date Sat, 24 Jun 2006 16:08:19 GMT


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel John Debrunner [mailto:djd@apache.org]
> 
> The original contribution of Derby was from IBM, hence IBM has the
> copyright on all those original files. The ASF policy is not to have
> individiual copyright statements in each source file and the new policy
> (I think) is to remove the copyright statement in each source file,
> leaving just the reference to the Apache Licence in the source file.
> 
> Dan.

[mjs] 
That would not be a good idea, and I suggest that you have IP attorneys from
IBM make a final recommendation on this. (No need for Apache to spend money
if IBM has the resources and its in IBM's best interest to do something.)

Here's why:

Indemnification. Each contributor of Derby agrees to indemnify Apache in the
case of a lawsuit due to copyright infringement. 

In simple terms, this means, if you contribute code, and then someone claims
that said code violates either their copyright, patent or was stolen, then
you and your company is on the hook for the cost of any legal challenge.

By leaving the copyright notice intact, you're preserving the forensic
information, thus making it easier to 1) determine the source of the alleged
code, and 2) determine who's going to be ultimately responsible to defend
the code...

If you think this is hogwash, then ask yourself how much has IBM spent
defending itself in the SCO suit.  Regardless of merit, only Sun and IBM
have deep enough pockets to pay for a defense. 

But hey! What do I know? Its not like I had to spend time with IBM legal on
contracts over my tenure at IBM. ;-) 

-G




Mime
View raw message