www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nick Burch <n...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Section 4.2, and patch build workflows
Date Sun, 03 Jul 2011 23:04:27 GMT
On Sun, 24 Apr 2011, Henri Yandell wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 5:32 PM, Benson Margulies <bimargulies@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 8:25 PM, Henri Yandell <bayard@apache.org> wrote:
>>> * "You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices stating
>>>  that You changed the files"
>>> Interesting question. Normally I would include the patch file and
>>> modify the NOTICE to indicate a change was made. I think AL 2.0 has
>>> already crossed the bridge of whether a file is independent of its
>>> NOTICE (ie it isn't). The modified file has a prominent notice that
>>> links to the license and that then points to the NOTICE file which
>>> explains the change.
>> If you're a lawyer (cause I'm not) I'm about to make a nonsense, but still,
>> The plain English sense of 'cause any ... files to carry prominent
>> notices'  -- to me -- requires a marking in the file. If it wanted
>> your interpretation, I'd think that it had to say, 'cause ... to carry
>> prominent notices or to be accompanied by a NOTICE file ... containing
>> ...'
> Every file points to the NOTICE file (via its LICENSE) in a prominent
> way. The weakness in my suggestion is (imo) not in the prominent part,
> but in the LICENSE itself which only indicates NOTICE files being for
> attribution/copyright indication. I think that we can consider
> identifying the modifications to be an area of attribution.
> The technical issue with my suggestion is that someone copying a file
> may lose the indication that a change has occurred. They'll also lose
> any necessary copyright indication/attribution in the NOTICE file as
> well, which I think is more important. By putting this in the NOTICE
> file we put both of the items they're meant to identify when re-using,
> while maintaining a sane technical solution.

Anyone else have any thoughts on this? Personally it seems like a fairly 
simple, workable idea to me


View raw message