www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Upayavira ...@odoko.co.uk>
Subject An abbreviated license header? (was Re: Generated Sources in SVN)
Date Mon, 06 Nov 2006 12:12:51 GMT
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. Also, shipping the license notice across 
the network for each request does nothing to boost site performance.

My interpretation of what Roy says above is that there is no legal 
reason to provide license headers in such files. However, I feel that 
that is perhaps going to the other extreme.

Would it be reasonable to add something such as this to the top of such 

// For license details see:
//             http://www.apache.org/licenses/asf-boilerplate.html

And put the standard boilerplate at such a URL?

Is that acceptable?

[Secondarily - if it is acceptable to use such a shortened header, would 
it also be acceptable to have that shortened header on the respective 
source files, such that we don't need to implement a header-mungler in 
our build process?]

Thanks in advance.

Regards, Upayavira

DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only.  Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF.  See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org

View raw message