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 14:58:15 GMT
Benson, I cry foul! You have entirely misrepresented the issue here and my response.

> As a matter of policy, we tell individual authors not to add notices asserting
> their individual copyright.
> ...
> This is settled, established, and documented policy, and it is inappropriate 
> for your to blithely post the incorrect notion that copyrights pass to the
> foundation, since the ICLA does not assign them -- unless you are clearly 
> making a proposal to change that policy.

I did not once in this thread suggest that copyrights pass to the foundation, nor did I suggest
that contributors add notices to their contributions. I spoke only, exclusively, and specifically
about these two (2) notices:

> Copyright (C) 2012 The Apache Software Foundation.
> Licensed under the terms of the http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0

There was nothing inappropriate or blithe about my answer to the question posed here initially,
which I quote directly from your very own 10/29 email:

> I have a very strong memory of a discussion, culminating in a policy,
> to allow very short files to have an abbreviated AL notice to avoid 
> having the notice completely overwhelm the content. I cannot find 
> this via google. Did I dream it?

I cannot comment on your dreams but I can say with authority that, given 17 USC 401 and 404(a),
the two line notice I suggested, while not necessary, is sufficient for short files. That
notice doesn't "completely overwhelm the content." I recommend that Apache adopt that as policy
if it isn't already policy.

/Larry

Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482
Office: 707-485-1242


-----Original Message-----
From: Benson Margulies [mailto:bimargulies@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2012 3:38 AM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Subject: Re: short file short notices

On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 6:10 AM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1 November 2012 02:26, Craig L Russell <craig.russell@oracle.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Oct 31, 2012, at 7:12 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
>>
>>> Craig Russell wrote:
>>>>
>>>> For many years, Apache have not put copyright notices into each file.
>>>
>>>
>>> So what?
>>>
>>> I answered the question as I believe it should be answered. I don't 
>>> give much credit to past Apache practices in this regard. Of course, 
>>> I stand ready to be corrected by an actual attorney or by anyone who 
>>> can point to an authority other than some Apache FAQ.
>>>
>>> If there is an Apache *policy* not to include copyright notices, I'd 
>>> appreciate hearing a justification for that other than merely "I 
>>> don't wanna...."

Individual authors retain their individual copyright, and license their work to the foundation.
As a matter of policy, we tell individual authors not to add notices asserting their individual
copyright. I don't think this is a legal matter, but rather a matter of organizational style.
We don't want to worry about maintain the inevitably growing list of authors, or worry about
who has made a change large enough to make a derivative work that can be copyrighted, and
who has merely made a tweak.

This is settled, established, and documented policy, and it is inappropriate for your to blithely
post the incorrect notion that copyrights pass to the foundation, since the ICLA does not
assign them
-- unless you are clearly making a proposal to change that policy.




>>
>>
>> We don't copyright each file. We copyright the work as a whole (is 
>> this the right legal term?) and require the copyright notice appear 
>> in the LICENSE
>
> Surely LICENSE should be NOTICE  ?
>
>> file at or near the top of the distribution.
>>
>> IANAL but welcome your response.
>>
>> Craig
>>
>> P.S. Did you read http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html ??? Really?
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> /Larry
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Craig L Russell [mailto:craig.russell@oracle.com]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 6:59 PM
>>> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
>>> Cc: lrosen@rosenlaw.com
>>> Subject: Re: short file short notices
>>>
>>> Dear Larry,
>>>
>>> Please.
>>>
>>> Please.
>>>
>>> Please.
>>>
>>> Read this: http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
>>>
>>> For many years, Apache have not put copyright notices into each file.
>>>
>>> Later,
>>>
>>> Craig
>>>
>>> On Oct 31, 2012, at 1:26 PM, 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. :-)
>>>>
>>>> /Larry
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> - 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
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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