www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Lawrence Rosen" <lro...@rosenlaw.com>
Subject RE: short file short notices
Date Thu, 01 Nov 2012 02:46:11 GMT
I'm always pleased to have an opportunity to agree with Craig Russell.

> So the copyright notice that we do require at or near the top of
> distributions is necessary and sufficient.

First a clarification: A copyright notice is *never* necessary. We won't go
to copyright jail for following current Apache practices or even by (gasp!)
leaving off the notices entirely.

As for the "sufficiency" of our policy, I would suggest that any object
(module, file, document, patch, data collection, entire program, etc.) that
we distribute as a separate entity ought to have an Apache copyright notice.


However, if as Craig suggests it is Apache practice to distribute only
entire programs rather than individual files, then of course he is right
about one copyright notice in the License file being sufficient for
informational purposes. But if individual objects are distributed by Apache,
then we ought to protect each of those individual objects with its own
copyright notice -- even though it isn't legally necessary.

/Larry


-----Original Message-----
From: Craig L Russell [mailto:craig.russell@oracle.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 7:33 PM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Cc: lrosen@rosenlaw.com
Subject: Re: short file short notices

Not surprisingly, Larry and I agree that

> Virtually everything we publish is "Copyright Apache Software 
> Foundation."

But I maintain that a copyright notice on each file is misleading at best,
since we copyright the work as a whole. So the copyright notice that we do
require at or near the top of distributions is necessary and sufficient.

Craig

On Oct 31, 2012, at 7:26 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:

> Benson Margulies wrote:
>> Virtually nothing is 'Copyright Apache Software Foundation'.
>> We don't ask people for copyright assignment.
>
> The second sentence above is true, but the first sentence is not.  
> The first sentence that you wrote is an example of an Apache urban  
> legend that has crept into our FAQ and our practices. And the second  
> sentence is simply irrelevant entirely.
>
> Virtually everything we publish is "Copyright Apache Software  
> Foundation." The scope of our copyright may be rather narrow, in  
> that others actually wrote much of the code. But like a magazine  
> publisher, we can assert our copyright on the collections of  
> software or documentation that we publish. That single Apache  
> copyright notice also protects the underlying copyrights owned by  
> our contributors.  See 17 USC §404(a). In that context, the Apache  
> copyright notice is a good thing we do for our contributors, not a  
> bad thing.
>
> /Larry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Benson Margulies [mailto:bimargulies@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 6:47 PM
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org; lrosen@rosenlaw.com
> Subject: Re: short file short notices
>
> Only one problem. Virtually nothing is 'Copyright Apache Software  
> Foundation'. We don't ask people for copyright assignment.
>
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 9:40 PM, Lawrence Rosen  
> <lrosen@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
>> David Crossley wrote:
>>> Could we also not have the Year if possible?
>>
>> When you publish with a copyright notice, insert the current year as
>> the "year of first publication". As an example of legal  
>> foolishness, a
>> copyright notice isn't required, but if you have one the format is
>> generally prescribed by copyright law. See 17 USC §401.
>>
>> /Larry
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: David Crossley [mailto:crossley@apache.org]
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 6:26 PM
>> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
>> Subject: Re: short file short notices
>>
>> Lawrence Rosen wrote:
>>> Someone quoted:
>>>>
>>>> (Personally, I don't see why Craig's short header[1] stating simply
>>>> "Licensed under the terms of
>>>> http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0" does not suffice for
>>>> everything we do.  But IANAL, etc...)
>>>
>>> Suffice for what purpose? No notices are *required* to comply with
>> copyright or licensing law, but for the purpose of notifying
>> recipients of the origin and availability of a file, I suggest the
>> following two-line minimum notice:
>>>
>>>     Copyright (C) 2012 The Apache Software Foundation.
>>>     Licensed under the terms of the
>> http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.
>>>
>>> Even that, though, is merely a nice-to-have, and so we shouldn't  
>>> care
>>> that it is moved in some cases to the bottom rather than the top  
>>> of a
>>> file. Or even omitted entirely for files shorter than 2 lines. :-)
>>
>> Thanks for the clear and complete answer Larry.
>> Please remove the fly-speck at the end of the URL.
>> Could we also not have the Year if possible?
>>
>> -David
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Benson Margulies [mailto:bimargulies@gmail.com]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 10:48 AM
>>> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: short file short notices
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Marvin Humphrey
>>> <marvin@rectangular.com>
>> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 8:28 AM, Craig L Russell
>>>> <craig.russell@oracle.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Well, there are quite a bit of how-to files that will need to
>>>>> change, and I think it would be good if there were a policy that
>> justifies it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Otherwise, we run the risk of getting some bit wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm +1 to make the change.
>>>>
>>>> If we finally get a "short header" approved, will that render this
>>>> "license footer" proposal obsolete?  It seems sub-optimal to update
>>>> those how-to files once, then update them again.
>>>>
>>>> (Personally, I don't see why Craig's short header[1] stating simply
>>>> "Licensed under the terms of
>>>> http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0" does not suffice for
>>>> everything we do.  But IANAL, etc...)
>>>
>>> As I understand how things happen in the legal arena around here ...
>>>
>>> To get a short header policy approved, someone has to say, "Here is
>>> my
>> practical problem on my TLP that would be solved by short headers  
>> (and
>> is not solved by the rules that exclude some things from copyright
>> altogether)". Any number of us who think it would be a good thing in
>> theory, but who don't represent an actual practical problem, won't  
>> cut it.
>>>
>>> So, the question is, do any of the authors of these JIRA fill the  
>>> bill?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Marvin Humphrey
>>>>
>>>> [1] http://s.apache.org/WHK (link to comment on legal JIRA-124)
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>

Craig L Russell
Architect, Oracle
http://db.apache.org/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@oracle.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!



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


Mime
View raw message