www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Craig L Russell <Craig.Russ...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: Apache License 2.0
Date Sat, 29 Mar 2008 16:20:55 GMT

On Mar 28, 2008, at 8:57 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:

>> 1. Take a close look at the proposed separator between the new  
>> license and the Apache license:
>> * This file incorporates work covered by the following copyright and
>> * permission notice: *
>> Note that the Apache header we've been using since 2004 does not  
>> include a copyright notice. It seems somewhat disconcerting to  
>> advertise "the following copyright" when there is no copyright.
> There is a copyright; it just isn't noticed by owner in every file.
> The rest of the header is a notice of license terms beyond the default
> of exclusive copyright.

Sorry, I misspoke. Of course there is a copyright, in a completely  
different place. What I'm confused about (and every person who reads  
the separator will have the same confusion) is that when you say  
"following copyright" you expect to see a copyright that follows the  

The words "following copyright" don't belong here.

> The concern can be easily (and factually) addressed by prefixing the
> existing header with "Portions of this file are ...".  The purpose of
> the header is to indicate where the work came from and the terms under
> which those original parts may be redistributed, primarily to avoid
> the situation where some downstream redistributor (e.g., JBoss)  
> accuses
> us of infringement just because they've violated our license and
> forgotten its origin.

Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!

View raw message