mxnet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Henri Yandell <bay...@apache.org>
Subject Source Headers [Was: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 0.11.0 release RC3]
Date Wed, 30 Aug 2017 02:15:18 GMT
On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 6:38 PM, John D. Ament <johndament@apache.org>
wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 9:30 PM John D. Ament <johndament@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 9:27 PM Henri Yandell <bayard@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Reverted to "Copyright Contributors"?
> >>
> >>
> > Yes, for any file that we don't have full agreement (ICLA on file) we
> > can't remove the copyright claim that already exists.  Us receiving an
> ICLA
> > is what allows us to say "Licensed to the ASF" (it's in the ICLA).
> >
> > It's not a big deal, since its Apache licensed, we just have to be
> careful
> > we're removing someone's pre-existing claim.
> >
>
> I'll give a more concrete example.
>
> Let's say I imported this file into an ASF repo
> https://github.com/spring-projects/spring-framework/
> blob/v5.0.0.RC3/spring-core/src/main/java/org/springframework/util/
> StringUtils.java
>
> I wouldn't change the header to say licensed to the ASF.  None of the
> contributors have signed ICLAs.  The file header would remain in tact.  I
> would also have to carry their notice file around
> https://github.com/spring-projects/spring-framework/
> blob/v5.0.0.RC3/src/docs/dist/notice.txt
> (at
> least I'm assuming this is their NOTICE file, I can't find any others
> around)
>
>
For a concrete example with copyright Pivotal; sure - nice and easy.

In this case we have 'Copyright Contributors'. It's an empty phrase that
would just cause confusion. Because Contributor isn't defined, it looks
like a repeat of our source header:

"Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more
contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file distributed with this
work for additional information regarding copyright ownership. ... "

Perhaps the solution is to, in the NOTICE, state:

Copyright 2015-2016 by Contributors
Copyright 2017 The Apache Software Foundation

Where we could change 'by Contributors' to be more descriptive, but I seem
to recall lots of pushback at changing 3rd party source headers to make
them more understandable.

---

Note also that clause 5 of Apache 2.0 means that many of those 'contributor
license agreements' are Apache 2.0 Licenses and not SGA/ICLA/CCLA. Its
language should also cover something else published under Apache 2.0; ie)
no need for a different Apache source header.

Hen

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