esme-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Anne Kathrine Petter√łe <>
Subject Re: Can we remove "Copyright WorldWide Conferencing , LLC" in source files?
Date Fri, 08 Jan 2010 09:25:53 GMT
Should we ping David?
I am not sure he reads all emails on the list these days.


On 8. jan. 2010, at 10.23, Richard Hirsch wrote:

> OK. Sounds like a plan.
> Let's wait and see how David responds.
> D.
> On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 10:18 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> <> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 10:06 AM, Richard Hirsch <> wrote:
>>> Look at David's comment on the Jira Item:
>> Let me reply to those here then, as disccusion is probably easier here
>> than in JIRA.
>> IANAL - happy to have this clarified by ASF legal team if needed):
>>> All the code that I have contributed is copyright WorldWide Conferencing, LLC.
>>> My reading of the license grant that I signed does not change the copyright holder.
>> Agreed, no problem with that.
>>> So, why should the assertion of copyright by the copyright holder be removed?
>> Because over time source code gets edited by various people who each
>> retain copyright on their contributions, so saying " copyright XYZ" is
>> only true for parts of the file after some time.
>> See,
>> the recommended way is to move the copyright notices to a NOTICE file
>> if the copyright holder wants that.
>>> In terms of the LiftConsole.scala, etc. files, those files were generated by
the Lift archetype
>>> The copyright on those files continues to remain with WorldWide Conferencing,
>>> LLC. The license on those files (and all Lift files) is Apache 2.0.
>> See my comments of today in ESME-47, that notice seems to be gone if
>> using recent versions of the Lift archetypes (except for one
>> unimportant file).
>>> If there is further question about keeping the copyright in the file, please
have one of
>>> the ASF lawyers contact me to discuss the various IP related issues.
>> In light of the additional explanations in this thread, I'd like to
>> have David's current opinion about removing those notices. If he wants
>> to discuss this with legal folks, no problem with that, but I thought
>> we might take a more direct route if there's agreement.
>> -Bertrand

View raw message