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 02:32:34 GMT
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