www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Simon Kitching <skitch...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Licence required in javadoc output?
Date Thu, 20 Jan 2005 23:55:19 GMT
On Thu, 2005-01-20 at 07:58 -0800, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005, Jeffrey Thompson wrote:
> > Interesting question.  First, a perspective point.  The copyright notice in
> > the file is primarily for Apache's benefit.  It puts people on notice that
> > Apache claims copyright on the material.
> Well, first, it really should be:
>   Copyright [yyyy] The Apache Software Foundation or its licensors, as
>   applicable.
> The board has been lax in asking the developers to adopt this new 
> attribution, which is much more appropriate than just saying "Copyright 
> The Apache Software Foundation"; the original contributions remain owned 
> by their contributors, we're simply granted a right to redistribute; we do 
> have a compilation copyright though, as I understand it.
> > On the other hand, the license (though it does have some benefit to Apache)
> > is primarily for the user's benefit.  Without it, the user has no license
> > at all.
> >
> > So, is the user put at a disadvantage in any way because the license isn't
> > embedded in the JavaDoc?  Wouldn't anyone who understands how JavaDoc works
> > know exactly how to find out what license is available for that material?
> My sense is that this is splitting hairs a bit and that the full license, 
> or even the reference to it, doesn't need to be included in the javadoc 
> output - just as we don't embed it as a string in compiled code when we 
> distribute binaries.  Would someone reasonably be able to claim that they 
> didn't know there was a copyright on that file simply because we didn't 
> put a notice in it?  My guess is probably not, or if so, no big deal.

Thanks Brian and Jeffrey.

I intend to start a vote on commons-dev for jakarta-commons-digester to:
(a) change the javadoc copyright statement to the one listed by Brian
above, and
(b) remove the license text from the javadoc.

Is it ok with both of you if I quote the relevant bits from your emails?
I'm asking because this *is* a closed list, unlike commons-dev. If I
don't get a response, I'll quote with attribution going to
"anonymous" :-)



View raw message