www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Apache Wiki <wikidi...@apache.org>
Subject [Legal Wiki] Update of "3party/notice/discuss" by RoyFielding
Date Wed, 05 Mar 2008 19:36:30 GMT
Dear Wiki user,

You have subscribed to a wiki page or wiki category on "Legal Wiki" for change notification.

The following page has been changed by RoyFielding:
http://wiki.apache.org/legal/3party/notice/discuss

The comment on the change is:
more answers

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   * I assume that the LICENSE NOTICE and README files are only supposed to contain details
of items that are actually '''included''' in a distribution.
     * Is this correct? 
      * [!SamRuby] I would agree... for the LICENSE and NOTICE
-     * [!RoyFielding] They must, at a minimum, contain the required attributions for what
is being distributed in that distribution.  They may include additional details for what is
distributed within release packages (as a convenience to the RM).  They NEVER include any
mention of anything that is not distributed by the ASF, even if the product does not work
without said thing -- such information belongs in the README file.
+     * [!RoyFielding] They must, at a minimum, contain the required attributions for what
is being distributed in that distribution.  They may include additional details for what is
distributed within release packages (as a convenience to the RM).  They should '''never'''
include any mention of anything that is not distributed by the ASF, even if the product does
not work without said thing -- such information belongs in the README file.
     * Or should they ever include references to external dependencies? If so, when?
      * [!SamRuby] Seems like something that one would expect to find in a README
     * Where an Apache project has multiple modules which are also distributed in separate
files, do the N&L files need to be tailored for the individual items, or can the same
N&L files be used for all modules? For example, there may be some code in module A that
requires an attribution, but module B does not have the code: can module B use the same N&L
files?
@@ -24, +24 @@

    * [!SamRuby] it is my understanding that the [http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#fnv
minimum necessary] is to put the year of first publication, and that (in the US at least),
copyright [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_Bono_Copyright_Term_Extension_Act lasts for
95 years]; and therefore should be updated more frequently that that for works expected to
still be of any value beyond that term.  I've also seen some people put forward some non-legal
reasons for suggesting that the year be kept current, but in general skipping a year or three
doesn't seem to raise any significant concerns.
    * [!SebastianBazley] In that case, the example NOTICE file above is wrong, unless the
Apache HTTP server was first published in 2008 ;-)
    * [!RolandWeber] What I've seen elsewhere is two years, where the first records the initial
copyright and the second is updated after significant changes. [http://www.cement.ca/sametime/stquickstartguide/H_QSG_CRIGHT_4075_OVER.html
example]
+   * [!RoyFielding] The answer depends on the copyright being noticed.  The copyright notice
in the NOTICE or README files is for the collective work (the only copyright actually owned
by the ASF, in most cases). As such, that date should change every time anything within the
collective work is changed.  The copyright notice within other files is usually copyright
of the expression within that file, and should only be updated when the expression is substantially
modified (justifying a new creative work).  Do not rely on past practice for examples -- in
almost all cases, the "mass update" of copyright years in every file was incorrect.
  
  [!HenriYandell] Comments
   * Should we provide a 'how to do attribution' section against NOTICEs for each license?
I'm thinking of the recent discussion on CPL and how it should provide a link to the original
homepage.
+    * [!RoyFielding] Probably. Thanks for volunteering.
  

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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


Mime
View raw message