www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Anne Kathrine Petterøe <yoji...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Committer refuses to remove copyright notices in source (ESME-47), how best to solve?
Date Tue, 12 Jan 2010 23:50:28 GMT
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? 

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

/Anne 

On 12. jan. 2010, at 22.59, Lawrence Rosen wrote:

> Anne Kathrine Petterøe asked:
>> What additional obligations will arise for users of ESME because
>> copyright notices are contained in either source code or the NOTICE
>> file? Especially if they distributed ESME source code rather than a
>> binary form?
> 
> None that I can think of. A copyright notice is not a copyright license. The
> latter is how you create obligations. Software from ASF is under the Apache
> License 2.0. You can rely on that to define your obligations and ours.
> 
> /Larry
> 
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Anne Kathrine Petterøe [mailto:yojibee@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 1:50 PM
>> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Committer refuses to remove copyright notices in source
>> (ESME-47), how best to solve?
>> 
>> Lawrence,
>> 
>> If you are still watching this thread.
>> There is one more question which I would like to clarify - purely for
>> self educating purposes.
>> 
>> What additional obligations will arise for users of ESME because
>> copyright notices are contained in either source code or the NOTICE
>> file? Especially if they distributed ESME source code rather than a
>> binary form?
>> 
>> Thank you,
>> Anne
>> 
>> 
>> On 12. jan. 2010, at 19.43, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>> 
>>> On 1/12/2010 3:55 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 8:34 AM, Henri Yandell <hyandell@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> +1, though I would suggest a slightly changed piece of text:
>>>>> 
>>>>> * Copyright 2008-2009 WorldWide Conferencing, LLC (under David
>> Pollak's CLA)
>>>> 
>>>> +1
>>> 
>>> The parenthetical is redundant, that's obvious from the commit
>> history.  Please
>>> reflect "Portions Copyright" because this is an evolving work,
>> provided even one
>>> other committer had touched this.
>>> 
>>>>> ...I'd also have something in the NOTICE file:
>>>>> 
>>>>> "This product contains software developed by David Pollak and
>> licensed
>>>>> to the Apache Software Foundation via a Contributor's License
>>>>> Agreement. David insisted on his copyright statement being on each
>>>>> file he touched. "
>>> 
>>> Please, no.  The list history provides that information, and this
>> comment is
>>> redundant, and he should be treated no differently than any other
>> committer.
>>> To preserve the copyright that was not removed, a simple statement;
>>> 
>>> "This product contains software developed by WorldWide Conferencing,
>> LLC
>>> and licensed under the Apache License 2.0"
>>> 
>>> is sufficient.
>>> 
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
> 


Mime
View raw message