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: site -= apply-license.html
Date Sat, 05 Apr 2008 14:57:46 GMT
On Sat, 2008-04-05 at 15:18 +0100, sebb wrote:
> On 05/04/2008, Robert Burrell Donkin <rdonkin@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >  On Thu, 2008-04-03 at 18:20 +0100, sebb wrote:
> >  > On 03/04/2008, Robert Burrell Donkin <rdonkin@apache.org> wrote:
> >  > > http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html is dated and contains
> >  > >  information that has been replaced by content on legal. i think most
of
> >  > >  the content is either out-of-date or replaced. i think that it's best
> >  > >  removed and a redirect added to the newer legal documentation.
> >  > >
> >  >
> >  > >  any objections?
> >  > >
> >  >
> >  > I think the only part of the document that is out of date are parts of
> >  > the #new section:
> >  > - the para about the NOTICE file is incomplete, because the ASF
> >  > Copyright line now goes in the file.
> >  > - the para about the source file header is incorrect, because the
> >  > header text has changed.
> >
> >
> > i'll go through each section:
> >
> >  the new section concerns the AL1.1->AL2.0 license update and is so
> >  completedly outdated
> 
> Disagree, there are still some code bases with 1.1 that may be updated.

really? 

> I think Commons Functors is one.

the code bases should really all be converted now: the grant-back clause
in AL2 isn't present in AL1.1 so more care needs to be taken when
patching those codebases. IMO it's about time that all code is converted
but until it is then you're right, some information about conversion
probably needs to be retained for archival purposes.

<snip>

> >  "Does that mean live branches of code all have to be updated by 1 March
> >  2004?" is no longer relevant
> >
> >  "Do I have to have a copy of the license in each source file?" is
> >  correct but covered in more detail elsewhere
> 
> Where?

http://www.apache.org/legal

> >  "In my current source files I have attribution notices for other works.
> >  Do I put this in each source file now?" is incomplete and possibly
> >  misleading
> >
> >  "Can/Should individual committers claim any copyright in the NOTICE or
> >  source code files?" is not correct
> 
> In what way?

legally. see http://www.apache.org/legal.

> >  "Can the LICENSE and NOTICE files be called LICENSE.txt and NOTICE.txt?"
> >  is accurate but normative
> 
> If it's normative then it needs to be kept.

sorry typo normative -> not normative

none of the contents are normative (and i should know ;-)

the only normative legal material is now the RTC stuff under
http://www.apache.org/legal

- robert

Mime
View raw message