www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Meeks <michael.me...@suse.com>
Subject Re: MPLv2 on AL2 header review ...
Date Tue, 29 May 2012 10:23:10 GMT
Hi Roy,

        Thank you for your feedback.

On Fri, 2012-05-25 at 11:45 -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> I assume you mean they are unchanged since they were formerly
> licensed by Sun/Oracle as LGPLv3.

        Correct; that is the case for most files.

> > /*
> > C Copyright 2012 LibreOffice contributors.
> 
> Who/What is "LibreOffice contributors" and what copyrightable
> expression did they create in 2012?

        The LibreOffice contributors I'm thinking of here are all those
that have contributed to the LibreOffice code, either directly or
indirectly that can have a meaningful (C) claim; that would include
Oracle of course. As such, of course it's arguably not a very meaningful
statement ;-) 

> Assuming you just made that up, please understand that it is illegal
> under US copyright law (Sec 506(c)) to claim copyright for something
> on which you do not actually own copyright.  That is why the ASF
> stopped adding ASF copyrights to individual files years ago -- we
> usually don't own the copyright to individual files, only to the
> collective work, and instead hold non-exclusive licenses from the
> copyright owners.

        Thanks; great input; so we should then have a vaguer header line
perhaps of the form:

    * This file is part of the LibreOffice project.

        Or somesuch.

> > M This Source Code Form is subject to the terms of the Mozilla Public
> > M License, v. 2.0. If a copy of the MPL was not distributed with this
> > M file, You can obtain one at http://mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/.
> 
> I am not aware of the copyright owners ever licensing the code as
> MPL2.  It's a fine license, but you can't just decide that for them.
> You would need their permission to do so, just like we needed
> permission to change it to the Apache License.

        The code in question is available un-modified (modulo the
license header) under both the LGPLv3-only and the AL2 (from an
approved Apache incubator release). We would be re-basing onto the
Apache licensed version.

        I'm not aware of any re-distribution clause in the AL2 (section 4
or otherwise) that forbids re-distribution of AL2 under a copy-left
license such as the MPLv2. Indeed, I had understood that this was an
explicit goal of the MPLv2 process, and indeed the GPLv3 process.

> If you want to add a comment at the beginning of every file that
> just directs people to your project

        The intention is to ensure that the modified files are made
available not under the terms of the AL2, but under the terms of the
MPLv2. Incidentally all of our [ch]xx files will be modified from
the Apache versions in various often mechanical ways.

> I suggest you just leave each file's headers as they are until
> changes are made that you don't want to submit to the ASF

        I suspect that it is neither useful or on-topic to discuss the
politics here; suffice it to say that we wish to provide our code changes
exclusively under a category-b weak-copy-left license. Naturally we want
to do that in a way that is compliant with the inbound Apache license -
hence asking for advice here.

> When you do make a change to a file, you can either add a comment
> around or near the changed part to say that you changed it (and
> apply whatever license you want specifically to those changes) or
> you can change the header in a factual way that includes a pointer
> to the license and the NOTICE file.  For example,

        Oh - that is interesting.

> "Portions of this file are licensed by the Apache Software Foundation
> under the Apache License 2.0 (http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0).
> See the NOTICE file distributed with this work for additional information
> regarding copyright ownership."

        So - would you would be happier with something like this header:

/*
 C This file is part of the LibreOffice project [ono.]
 C
 M This Source Code Form is subject to the terms of the Mozilla Public
 M License, v. 2.0. If a copy of the MPL was not distributed with this
 M file, You can obtain one at http://mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/.
 M
 A Portions of this file are licensed by the Apache Software Foundation
 A under the Apache License 2.0 (http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0).
 A See the NOTICE file distributed with this work for additional information
 A regarding copyright ownership."
 */

	Though, personally I prefer the clarity of the previous one that
retained more of the original Apache license header. If so, I'm happier
as it makes the header yet shorter and sweeter. Are there any examples of
this form of shortened header elsewhere ?

        Many thanks,

                Michael.

-- 
michael.meeks@suse.com  <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot


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


Mime
View raw message