www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From robert burrell donkin <rdon...@apache.org>
Subject Re: An abbreviated license header? (was Re: Generated Sources in SVN)
Date Mon, 06 Nov 2006 21:14:18 GMT
On Mon, 2006-11-06 at 12:12 +0000, Upayavira wrote:
> Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> > On Nov 5, 2006, at 11:32 AM, Dan Diephouse wrote:
> >> robert burrell donkin wrote:
> >>> FWIW i tell people that generated documents do not require headers. AIUI
> >>> it's the sources which are important from the copyright perspective. be
> >>> good to know whether this is right or not then add something to the
> >>> legal FAQ...
> >>>
> >> This stance makes sense to me. Based on my limited legal knowledge, 
> >> they're generated so there is no one who owns the copyright, unless we 
> >> have a policy of going around and collecting CLAs from programs which 
> >> I don't know about....  :-)
> > 
> > No, the copyright owner of the source file is the owner of the generated
> > file -- the lack of originality means that one cannot claim a new copyright
> > just by generating the work, not that the ownership of the original
> > copyright disappears.
> > 
> > We don't require headers on generated files because they are a pain
> > in the butt to generate.  Headers are not required to preserve copyright,
> > so there is no "legal" reason to provide them at all.  The reason we do
> > provide them is to inform the users that we have given them permission
> > to do Apache Licensed things with the code that copyright would (normally)
> > prevent them from doing.  In other words, the header is just us being
> > nice to our users (and hopefully reducing future FAQs).
> 
> At Wicket, we have a number of extremely small Javascript, CSS or HTML 
> files that get embedded into the distributable jar. These files will end 
> up viewable in their browser by a user when a page is served.
> 
> Some of these files are maybe 2 or 3 lines long, and would be completely 
> swamped by the license notice. 

AIUI small files are too unoriginal to be copyrightable (in the US).
TWIST, they don't require copyright headers.

my issue with wicket was not the files 2 or 3 lines long but the large
numbers of files which were creative enough to be copyrightable but
which lacked license headers.

i have particular concerns about CSS files. IMHO these are almost always
creative enough to be copyrightable but many people think that it's ok
to copy them. i worry about the provenance of any CSS file which lacks a
header.

- robert

Mime
View raw message