www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kevan Miller <kevan.mil...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: File Headers
Date Wed, 26 Mar 2014 00:12:20 GMT
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 3:21 PM, Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com> wrote:

> On 3/25/14 3:03 PM, "Alex Harui" <aharui@adobe.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >On 3/24/14 9:30 PM, "Alex Harui" <aharui@adobe.com> wrote:
> >
> >>I have a question about third-party source files as described in:
> >>http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#3party
> >>
> >>Company A develops is a set of files that comprise version 1 of a
> >>software
> >>product.
> >>The source code is made available under BSD.
> >>Company B takes this source code and creates a whole new version.
> >>New files are added.
> >>Some of Company A's files are modified significantly.
> >>Some of Company A's files are not modified at all.
> >>
> >>Company B donates the entire set of source code to Apache.
> >
> >Is this a contribution being accepted by a project? And coming in through
> >the incubator's ip clearance process?
> >http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html
>
> Hmm.  It appears that we have some paperwork to do.  I'll follow up on
> that on general@incubator
>
> >
> >Is company B contributing "their" code as ALv2?
>
> Yes.
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >>Clearly, the new files get Apache Headers and Company B goes in the
> >>NOTICE
> >>file.
> >Not enough information to evaluate that... Has Company B requested that
> >they be in the NOTICE file?
>
> Yes
>
> >>I want to verify that we should not change the headers for Company A's
> >>files that weren't modified.
> >Examples/specifics might help... What changes do you want to make?
> >
>
> Replacing the header with the Apache header.
>
> >In general:
> >
> >Don't change any copyright statements for Company A, unless you have
> >explicit permission from A (or better for A to make the change,
> >themselves). Don't alter/insert licensing information, either, since
> >neither you nor B have the ability to relicense files that are copyright
> >A.
> >
> >BTW, did B give you permission to move/remove their copyrights? Or is
> >someone from B doing this?
> >
>
> We have permission from B.
>
> >
> >
> >>And I want to understand what the options are for the files that were
> >>significantly modified.
> >>Is it the PMC's decision as to whether to change the header or are we
> >>supposed to consult this list first?
> >Are these files copyrighted by B? If not, then I don't see why you
> >would/could change the header...
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >>Since in theory we cannot move Company A's copyright to the NOTICE file,
> >>is there an option to put in the Apache Header and leave the Company A
> >>header underneath or above it?
> >This seems to imply that Company A's files are now ALv2. But that's not
> >clear to me...
> >
> If a Company A file was modified so that most of the lines of code in that
> file are now written by Company B, and B's work is under AL but A's work
> is under BSD, do you still leave A's header/copyright in the file?  IOW,
> does it matter what percent of the file was done by A under BSD?
>

Maybe, but I doubt that you'll get a specific number, here. And personally,
I would be to follow company B's lead. When B wrote/rewrote extensive
sections of some file, did they also remove A's copyright/relicense the
file? If so, then you could relicense the file, move copyright, etc. If B
did not, I would not change the license/copyright.


>
> >
> >>
> >>Or is this not that hard of a question because we should leave Company
> >>A's
> >>header and put Company A and Company B in the NOTICE and since most of
> >>the
> >>code will have AL headers folks will read the NOTICE and realize there is
> >>some mixing of licenses and copyrights in some of these files?
> >So this seems to imply you will have a mix of BSD (company A) and ALv2
> >(company B)?
> >
> >The LICENSE file (or files) would contain the applicable licenses (e.g.
> >ALv2 and BSD). And furthermore, I'd expect the LICENSE to contain
> >information on which files/directories are under each license. The NOTICE
> >is a separate matter.
> >
> OK, so the LICENSE file is where we should make it more clear what files
> are under what license.
>

Right. And the source license header of each file, of course...

--kevan

Mime
View raw message