www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefano Bagnara <apa...@bago.org>
Subject Re: Reuse of ASF source code and NOTICE
Date Tue, 19 Aug 2008 12:28:19 GMT
Simon Kitching ha scritto:
> Stefano Bagnara schrieb:
>> Emmanuel Bourg ha scritto:
>>> There is an alternative that may simplify this issue. Commons Codec 
>>> has a Base64Input/OuputStream already, it will be part of the 
>>> upcoming 1.4 release. You may simply add a dependency instead of 
>>> copying the code from MyFaces. That's a relatively small jar (50k).
>>> Emmanuel Bourg
>> Thank you for the pointer.
>> I checked commons-codec but only for released code and it was not 
>> there. We won't probably add a dependency for this (our product is a 
>> basic library and have no dependencies so far), but we can copy that 
>> code from commons-codec without the need to credit Oracle, so it may 
>> worth the change (or we could use maven-shade-plugin to better deal 
>> with this "minor" dependency).
>> But first I have to deal with our release in progress issue :-( ,
> Then why not just add the notice? It seems quite reasonable to me to do so.

That's what I already done for trunk, after I received this answers.

> Oracle wrote 100% of ADFFaces. It then went through the incubator where 
> significant changes were made, but mostly by Oracle employees. It has 
> then had some changes, but not significant ones, as part of the MyFaces 
> trinidad project. So it is *probably* true that Oracle funded the 
> development of the code you are reusing. It seems fair to credit them in 
> the NOTICE.

I don't care HERE of what is fair or not. HERE I want to understand what 
is required by the law and what is the policy by the ASF. ;-)

I wrote plenty of code for the ASF and I never asked anyone to credit 
me, like most of other ASF committers do.

I thought that ASF suggested to remove copyright notices few years ago, 
and I removed any reference to my name in the code I donated/contributed 
to the ASF, that's why I wondered if this Oracle statement was redundant 
once they contributed it as part of their CCLA and granted copyright 
license for it.

IIRC at that time there was also some mass-commit to remove the @author 
string from classes, without involving any of the @authors. So maybe 
this is was not appropriate, according to this Oracle issue.. or maybe 
this was ok because that @authors were not in the NOTICE file... ?!

That's something I didn't know, and it is good to increase the knowledge 
with this cases. Maybe in future for some contributions I'll prefer to 
be credited in the NOTICE so anyone reusing my code will not only have 
to credit ASF but also me.

> Agreed we don't want to have a NOTICE entry for every small bit of code 
> reuse, eg one or two classes. But for larger chunks it does seem fair. 
> In this case it certainly seems easiest to just add the notice now and 
> then have this debate at leisure rather than holding up your release. I 
> thought your proposed wording on an earlier email was fine.

Taking care of NOTICE in every generated artifact is a cost, so if I 
will find a different implementation that won't require to have a NOTICE 
statement I'll take it. I don't have issues with Oracle at all, and I 
like to credit where credit is due. If you read this full thread you 
will see that I introduced it as a MISTAKE (i didn't see the NOTICE 
content at first).

In this specific thread I was asking how to deal with this as a release 
has already been voted by my PMC including the "code" but not including 
the credits.


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