www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Craig L Russell <craig.russ...@oracle.com>
Subject Re: short file short notices
Date Thu, 01 Nov 2012 02:26:07 GMT

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...."

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 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


Mime
View raw message