incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Anne Kathrine Petter√łe <yoji...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
Date Tue, 19 Jan 2010 17:01:37 GMT
Robert,

We have already had a lengthy discussion on legal-discuss:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201001.mbox/thread
Look for the "Committer refuses to remove copyright notices in source (ESME-47),	how best
to solve? " thread.

I am not sure if this is the same list as the legal-private list you mention?

The text in this vote is a suggestion from William Rowe:
http://markmail.org/message/q6yweleer2voqvd3
(which no one on the legal-list objected to)

/Anne
 
On 19 Jan, 2010, at 17:51 , Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Anne Kathrine Petter√łe
> <yojibee@gmail.com> wrote:
>> PPMC and IPMC, please re-vote on the following regarding copyright issue ESME-47.
> 
> <snip>
> 
>> 2. The Apache License block will be followed by a legacy comment (Only in files where
the WorldWide Conferencing notice currently exists, except any files where user dpp has not
made any contribution):
>> /* * Portions Copyright 2009 WorldWide Conferencing, LLC */
> 
> <ipmc-hat><legal-hat><ianal>
> 
> if this language has not been cleared with our lawyers on legal-private then :
> 
> * i'm -1 on this phrasing
> * please raise a legal JIRA for appropriate language
> 
> </ianal></legal-hat></ipmc-hat>
> 
> the reason for this veto is that i believe that this phrasing is
> 
> 1. potentially untrue
> 
> for example, if at some future time someone decides to revert all the
> relevant commits - or in time the code is so extensively revised then
> no portions of the code will be subject to that copyright and the
> statement will be untrue.
> 
> 2. potentially dangerous
> 
> for example it could be read as a claim rather than a statement
> 
> 
> AIUI (please jump in if i'm wrong) some source files was derived from
> originals that contained the notice "Copyright 2009 WorldWide
> Conferencing, LLC". something along the lines below seems to me more
> truthful:
> 
> /*
> * This document was derived from an original containing the following
> copyright notice:
> *
> *     Copyright 2009 WorldWide Conferencing, LLC
> *
> */
> 
> but IMO this is a job for a lawyer
> 
> - robert


Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message