www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject Re: Copyright and license questions
Date Thu, 03 Dec 2015 20:11:17 GMT
On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Roberta Marton <roberta.marton@esgyn.com>
wrote:

> So, I can have a file that contains the standard Apache header followed by
> the original copyright notice following by its license text?
>
>
>
> File xyx:
>
>    Apache license boilerplate
>

I would identify component (specific files) followed by...

>    Copyright notice from third party
>
>    License text from third party
>

since this makes it easier to identify when a given sublicense can
go away based on replacing a specific component.


> I thought that if a file had a third party copyright notice, that should
> be retained and we should not add an Apache license on top.
>
>
Original is retained unless the copyright holder/agent agrees to simplify
it down to LICENSE/NOTICE, but inject the Apache License, because
from the first commit that becomes an ASF-specific change.  The simple
act of inserting the AL further identifies that this code either has been
or will be modified at it's project within the ASF, as you mention some
licenses insist this is disclosed.  If the copyright also has an advertising
clause, respect this by adding an entry to NOTICE.

This goes for sources that are integrated and maintained within a project.
In the case of third party immutable components, I wouldn't think specific
relicensing is worthwhile (for example, apr-util used to distribute expat,
and kept a copy of it in the source tree, c.f.
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/apr/apr-util/branches/1.5.x/xml/expat/
with no re-licensing or ASF attribution, per say. ).

If we (APR project) are doing something wrong in the example I provided,
hopefully another expert here will speak up :)

Mime
View raw message