Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of lrosen@rosenlaw.com
 designates 173.254.64.10 as permitted sender)
Reply-To: <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
From: "Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
To: <legal-discuss@apache.org>
Cc: <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
References: 
 <CALhtWkcwinvNU-zZywfavdNV0M=0A6UaDaO5V=wdvs+xSveyLw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOFYJNags-gYbDj-xfy+GuvEwyb7iXd=5K3WLhk5UKYMT9at3A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACAoQH0FRcwJUxFRNtrdb7Uo-Xsj0LxA8Dhxiw96C2M9ESSApA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALhtWkeJ0sPT69Y3z74sG_xYPV_Qou0CXjMYas0+Wb0T3uGLhQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<C154D6A7-B3E3-427D-872C-39C9987593EC@oracle.com>
	<CAAS6=7hAS4gesjoBU--gF4V0ONb8i6fMz28NDPuyzZj=GLF2DA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALhtWkfnORkXoVZyGet0OqNRkFJVuGhYOoiQuPAdww_0KSGWLA@mail.gmail.com>
 <07d701cdb7a6$07dc3aa0$1794afe0$@rosenlaw.com>
 <31F134CE-E665-4B74-9442-C934EC0D84F4@oracle.com>
In-Reply-To: <31F134CE-E665-4B74-9442-C934EC0D84F4@oracle.com>
Subject: RE: short file short notices
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 19:12:32 -0700
Organization: Rosenlaw & Einschlag
Message-ID: <081201cdb7d6$5a6a4250$0f3ec6f0$@rosenlaw.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Thread-Index: 
 AQIhL2qDXPvq1cZHGNSRUhrR1mZE2gKd+dIhAoCe9TMBibGnpwM0nmO3AmUADcQBcmf2zwJ4Mn6LAtnUlxiWlRkMUA==
Content-Language: en-us

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...."

/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