esme-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bertrand Delacretaz <bdelacre...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Can we remove "Copyright WorldWide Conferencing , LLC" in source files?
Date Fri, 08 Jan 2010 09:18:50 GMT
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 10:06 AM, Richard Hirsch <hirsch.dick@gmail.com> wrote:
> Look at David's comment on the Jira Item:
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ESME-47?focusedCommentId=12729407&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#action_12729407

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 http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#header-existingcopyright,
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

Mime
View raw message