www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>
Subject Re: License changes for Zeta (incubating)
Date Wed, 28 Jul 2010 20:04:56 GMT
On 07/28/2010 03:52 PM, Tobias Schlitt wrote:
> Sam,
> On 07/28/2010 08:06 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 3:50 AM, Tobias Schlitt<tobias@schlitt.info>  wrote:
>>> I'm on fixing license headers and stuff for the Zeta Components project
>>> and want to re-confirm that I got everything right. The Zeta project has
>>> been developed under the hood of eZ Systems AS (http://ez.no) previously
>>> and code drop was signed last week.
>>> - From http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html I understand that we
>>> now process as follows:
>>> - - Remove all copyright notices from source files
>>> - - Add Apache License 2.0 header to every source file
>>> - - Add a NOTICE file that notices the copyright of eZ Systems
>>> Is that the correct procedure? Or do we need to follow the steps for
>>> "Treatment of Third-Party Works" and keep the current copyright info
>>> inside the source files?
>> Mostly, these types of questions are handled in the incubator.  As I
>> see it, the question comes down to whether eZ Systems is actively
>> participating (i.e., one of the first two parties), or if somebody
>> else (one of the first two parties) is committing (appropriately
>> licensed) code from eZ Systems without their knowledge or involvement
>> (i.e., as a third party).
> eZ Systems signed the code drop and provided an SVN export, which has
> been imported. So, basically eZ has actively participated. The company
> will also participate in future development.
> So, basically, eZ belongs to the first two parties and we should follow
> the procedure described above. Right?
>> In general, retention of statements of ownership is something the ASF
>> discourages but does not forbid.  In many cases, it has been found to
>> inhibit the formation of a community.  When possible, it is preferred
>> that such acknowledgements be moved, by the owners of the copyright,
>> to the NOTICE file.
> We would like having eZ attributed as the original creator of the code.
> However, I don't think it's necessary to have them listed in each source
> file. Is this a decision eZ must take or can we as project decide on how
> we handle copyright notices.

I would strongly discourage anybody from removing copyright notices that 
were intentionally placed there by somebody else.  If eZ is amenable to 
having their attribution moved to the NOTICE file, it would be much 
preferred if somebody from eZ actually made the changes.

 From what you describe above, I don't gather that that will be a problem.

> Regards,
> Toby
> - --
> Tobias Schlitt         tobias@schlitt.info       GPG Key: 0xC462BC14
> a passion for php                     http://schlitt.info/opensource
> eZ Components are Zeta Components now!          http://bit.ly/9S7zbn

- Sam Ruby

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

View raw message