www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Henri Yandell <hyand...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Including code snippet in commercial software
Date Sat, 24 Jan 2009 23:55:15 GMT
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 2:15 PM, Niclas Hedhman <niclas@hedhman.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 7:45 PM, Henri Yandell <hyandell@gmail.com> wrote:
>> If you take a snippet out of an ASF project and put it in your source,
>> and don't maintain the LICENSE, NOTICE, source header and potentially
>> the note on modification;
> Sorry Henri, I think we have some communication problems; The above
> statement (which I agree with) is not in accordance with how I
> interpreted your previous statement.
> Here you say;
>  1. License must be forwarded.
>  2. A notice of such goes into NOTICE
>  3. Source Header maintained.
> You add "potentially", which seems like "if it makes sense".

The 'potentially' was based on this discussion. ie) I think the
license says it has to, but that that is not desirable. You say it's
not desirable. So we're agreeing but I'm being a stickler in that I
want us to clearly state that this is the case in a FAQ. Something

"AL 2.0 Section 4.2 on modification of a file under the AL 2.0
requiring prominent notices is when a file may appear to be from the
original source and not when pieces of a file are pulled out and
integrated into a larger one. The important aspect is whether a user
would think that this file was canonical. We encourage the good
programming practice of indicating where the source came from, but
there are times when this is counter productive (for example patches
to an AL 2.0 licensed product). "

> To that, I just said; "This file contains...." to make it clear which
> file that contain the snippet(s).
> I interpreted that you claimed that every fragment of such snippet
> must be kept identifiable through-out the history of that files future
> life. I claim that is not maintainable, and not required.
> I also said, that personally I make a huge distinction for a
> modification made in a file that doesn't change name, for instance for
> API compatibiilty reasons, in that there it would be listed that a
> change has been made, and preferably (not always feasible either) what
> those changes are (perhaps with a comment). I happen to think that
> this is not strictly required, but a matter of good manners.

We're agreeing in vision - I'm trying to get the ASF to agree and state it so :)

>From the other email:

On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 2:18 PM, Niclas Hedhman <niclas@hedhman.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 7:45 PM, Henri Yandell <hyandell@gmail.com> wrote:
>> If we are pulling AL 2.0 licensed code that's not under our copyright
>> in, sure. We do that rarely enough imo that the above is also not at
>> the problem level.
> Count the patches in JIRA. Many of those are not Copyright of a person
> with an ICLA on file. And I bet that many of those are applied without
> injecting any comments marking the changes in the code itself. I guess
> it various heavily from project to project, but I think this is not
> "rare". So, I think we are (as mentioned earlier) not communicating
> properly, more than any adverse mis-interpretation of "what goes".

Ah - I see. Anything without a CLA is coming to us under the AL 2.0
and not under the CLA's licensing. Very good point and I apologize for
missing that.

So yes - we should be pulling the LICENSE, NOTICE, source header and
marking modification. Given that it never has a LICENSE, NOTICE - very
rarely has a source header (I've once had a copyright statement that I
ended up putting in the NOTICE); the only open item is the marking of
modification and a FAQ item like above would be good.


That leaves the question of LICENSE, NOTICE and source header for
examples. For a website example there is no NOTICE. The LICENSE is a
href, so it would seem pretty fair to also link rather than copy.
There's also no source header. So in the particular use case pointed
out it would appear that linking to the license is the most you need.

There are some problems with this. We have source generated reports on
our website. They keep the source header, but is the LICENSE/NOTICE as
obvious? The example code is also available in the download. Here the
LICENSE/NOTICE are clearly going to exist and there'll be a source
header. All of which means you can get things from the website in a
'lighter' license than the download.


To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org

View raw message