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: Committer refuses to remove copyright notices in source (ESME-47), how best to solve?
Date Sat, 16 Jan 2010 01:28:45 GMT
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Anne Kathrine Petterøe
<yojibee@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Larry,
> Thank you for your response. What I'm concerned about is the following
> language in the Apache license: http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
> 4. Redistribution.
> [...]
>      (c) You must retain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works
>          that You distribute, all copyright, patent, trademark, and
>          attribution notices from the Source form of the Work,
>          excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of
>          the Derivative Works; and
> "Source form" is defined as
>      "Source" form shall mean the preferred form for making modifications,
>      including but not limited to software source code, documentation
>      source, and configuration files.
> If there are copyright notices in either the code or the NOTICE file, the
> Apache license seems to suggest an obligation to preserve them, as long as
> the distribution happens in Source form.
> I'm concerned about the effect of this language for both downstream users of
> Apache code, as well as Apache committers:
> Do you believe this obligation to preserve the copyright notices also
> applies to users that compile Apache code and distribute it with a
> commerical product? In other words, would a company that distributes Apache
> code in binary form (e.g. Class files), but that does not preserve the
> copyright notices in some form violate the Apache license?

Per 4.4 - the NOTICE file must be maintained regardless of the use
being in Source or Object form.

I would expect the NOTICE file to refer to the copyright notices in
the source, so failing to maintain the NOTICE file would violate the
Apache license. So very much a "Yes and No" answer. 4.4 should cover
concern over 4.3 when in Object form.

If the project releasing code under the Apache license have not
included all elements in the source in the NOTICE then I'd expect them
to fix that.

> Equally, are the Apache repositories a form of distribution?

I think it's akin to that within a company, i.e. it's movement of
bytes between the Apache Software Foundation and a committer acting on
its behalf.

> Hence, in your
> opinion, would an Apache committer who removes the copyright notices put in
> by another Apache committer immediately void the copyright license grant of
> that original Apache committer?

Not that I see. Here is the copyright license grant from the ICLA (ASF


"2. Grant of Copyright License. Subject to the terms and conditions of
  this Agreement, You hereby grant to the Foundation and to
  recipients of software distributed by the Foundation a perpetual,
  worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable
  copyright license to reproduce, prepare derivative works of,
  publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute Your
  Contributions and such derivative works."

Committers don't license to the ASF via AL 2.0. The same holds for
notable contributions which use a software 'grant' license.


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

View raw message