Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Received-SPF: unknown (athena.apache.org: error in processing during lookup of
 aharui@adobe.com)
From: Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com>
To: "legal-discuss@apache.org" <legal-discuss@apache.org>,
	"lrosen@rosenlaw.com" <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
Subject: Re: License Footer
Thread-Topic: License Footer
Thread-Index: AQHPNoxYvRh8WWUINUKom5JKMs5YFJrPTWWA//+uiYCAAI1FAP//fEYA
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 16:19:27 +0000
Message-ID: <CF39EAA8.1A76A%aharui@adobe.com>
References: 
 <CAKKdvLtkyb_Z_3JzTP8ob0QPy5V18jjiTZpwoGnUm57qtosC3A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALznzY49jyPUkoM0YpPSOHcqP1H6iy82QiSP0tiJ8aBBBL7z3A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CF39E30B.1A74B%aharui@adobe.com>
 <013501cf36fb$28f6d530$7ae47f90$@rosenlaw.com>
In-Reply-To: <013501cf36fb$28f6d530$7ae47f90$@rosenlaw.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.9.131030
received-spf: None (: adobe.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <F8E59ACD00539846AF80BD65C75044DD@namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0


On 3/3/14 8:10 AM, "Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen@rosenlaw.com> wrote:

>Alerx Harui wrote:
>> IANAL, but my company's legal team has advised us to put
>> legal stuff before content so it makes it harder for someone
>> to argue that they didn't see the legal stuff.
>
>When you work for a company, DO WHAT YOUR COMPANY LAWYER TELLS YOU TO DO!
>
>As for Apache software, I repeat: There is no legal reason to put the
>legal
>stuff before content. No reason at all! It neither adds to nor detracts
>from
>the legal protections afforded to the software.
>
>In fact, including that "legal stuff" in the source code at the end is
>much
>better than not including it at all.
>
>I respond to this email publicly so that any Apache lawyer who disagrees
>can
>respond publicly and set the record straight.
I cannot speak for my company's legal team, but I'm pretty sure they would
agree.  Their only point was that it could cut down on the cost of arguing
about it, so more of a practical, "do what folks expect" and "don't appear
sneaky" advice, than a legal requirement.

-Alex


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org