Message-Id: <199509181718.MAA11519@austin.bsdi.com>
To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com
Subject: Re: New license 
In-reply-to: Paul Richards's message of Mon, 18 Sep 1995 14:14:40 BST.
References: <199509181314.OAA13793@server.netcraft.co.uk> 
From: Tony Sanders <sanders@bsdi.com>
Organization: Berkeley Software Design, Inc.
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 12:18:27 -0500
Sender: owner-new-httpd@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org

Paul Richards writes:
> In reply to Tony Sanders who said
> > I think you missed my point.  You said "For the NCSA code, either
...
> Hang on, first you've been rather selective in quoting me, you've only quoted
> the first clause of the "either", the second clause said something like
> "or someone sticks their copyright on it and then we can use the Apache
> license".  You're original reply talked about an Apache copyright, you can't
> do that. I agree about copyrighting public domain code, you should re-read
> my previous mail on this subject.

I did misread your original post which read:

> I'm not going to change the license and copyright on code that
> clearly isn't mine and I've got no idea who did what. For the NCSA
> code, either it stays in the public domain and any Apache patches
> go into the public domain with it, or Rob McCool steps forward and
> claims copyright on the bits he wrote, or someone claims them as
> derivative works and places a copyright on it.

I missed case #3 which is what I was talking about, that someone
(anyone who publishes the works) can claim copyright on it.

My use of "Apache copyright" means whatever copyright we decide to
use for the Apache distribution (either individual copyrights or
whatever) and the Apache license.  Which I often call a copylicense.