www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Roberta Marton <roberta.mar...@esgyn.com>
Subject RE: Copyright and license questions
Date Thu, 03 Dec 2015 17:24:10 GMT
Thanks Alex for your advice on the Artistic License issue.

We decided to just remove the dependency which worked out for the best
because we did some code cleanup in the process.



However, I am still having difficulty figuring out what goes in the LICENSE
file and what goes in the NOTICE.  I have read the Apache guidelines
several times but am still unclear.  Let’s take a simple example.



The following copyright notice exists in code donated to Apache.  It is
assume to be third party work.

We made changes to the third party code.



So, what gets added to LICENSE and what gets added to NOTICE?  I have
looked at many other projects and they all to do it differently.



/*******************************************************************************

* Copyright (c) 2013, Salesforce.com, Inc.

* All rights reserved.

*

 * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without

* modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are
met:

*

 *     Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
notice,

*     this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.

*     Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
notice,

*     this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
documentation

*     and/or other materials provided with the distribution.

*     Neither the name of Salesforce.com nor the names of its contributors
may

 *     be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software
without

 *     specific prior written permission.

*

 * THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS
IS" AND

* ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
IMPLIED

* WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE

* DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE
LIABLE

 * FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR
CONSEQUENTIAL

 * DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS
OR

 * SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION)
HOWEVER

 * CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT
LIABILITY,

 * OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF
THE USE

 * OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

******************************************************************************/



What I have done is add the above text to the LICENSE file with a note that
we made changes.  I did not change the NOTICE file.



   Regards,

   Roberta



*From:* Alex Harui [mailto:aharui@adobe.com]
*Sent:* Wednesday, December 2, 2015 10:42 AM
*To:* legal-discuss@apache.org
*Subject:* Re: Copyright and license questions



I don't see it listed either.  If your situation is different from
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-217 I would recommend opening a
new LEGAL issue for your situation.



HTH,

-Alex



*From: *Roberta Marton <roberta.marton@esgyn.com>
*Reply-To: *"legal-discuss@apache.org" <legal-discuss@apache.org>
*Date: *Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 10:30 AM
*To: *"legal-discuss@apache.org" <legal-discuss@apache.org>
*Subject: *RE: Copyright and license questions



Thanks, another question.



What is Apache’s policy regarding Artistic License 2?  I don’t see it
listed in the okay to include nor in the not okay to include.



     Roberta



*From:* Alex Harui [mailto:aharui@adobe.com]
*Sent:* Wednesday, December 2, 2015 10:08 AM
*To:* legal-discuss@apache.org
*Subject:* Re: Copyright and license questions



I think I only saw one follow-up question.  Did I miss one?



Regarding a Facebook copyright in a file.  It sounds like that file is
under the Apache License 2.0.  But because that file has not been granted
to the ASF it is still considered 3P.



The how-to says that you don't have to mention AL files in LICENSE, but
these archives also include a thread I was involved in where a couple of
people approved a patch that changes the how-to to recommend that non-ASF
bundles under AL still get mentioned in LICENSE so the LICENSE does contain
everything people need to know about non-ASF bundles.  That patch hasn't
been applied yet.



For my releases, I use pointers, and list non-ASF bundles even if they are
under AL.  IMO, it isn't shouldn't be a release-blocker either way since
the main goal is make sure consumers feel confident that they know what
ingredients might need consideration.  For the most part, whether an AL
file is granted to the ASF or not shouldn't matter too much until they
start modifying the code and want to share their changes.



HTH,

-Alex



*From: *Roberta Marton <roberta.marton@esgyn.com>
*Reply-To: *"legal-discuss@apache.org" <legal-discuss@apache.org>
*Date: *Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 8:46 AM
*To: *"legal-discuss@apache.org" <legal-discuss@apache.org>
*Subject: *RE: Copyright and license questions



Alex - thanks for your answers.  They are very helpful.



A few follow-up questions.



In the first case, the code contains a Facebook copyright so it is a third
party tool to us.  I should then be able to handle it through 3P rules.
  But I was curious because the license text is from Apache so maybe I
would not need to put anything in the LICENSE file.



I did notice in the documentation that it recommended putting pointers to
license text.  However, when I look at other projects, they mostly tend to
put in the actual license text.  But it is much cleaner to add pointers.
Will try to do this as much as possible.



       Regards,

       Roberta



*From:* Alex Harui [mailto:aharui@adobe.com]
*Sent:* Tuesday, December 1, 2015 10:42 PM
*To:* legal-discuss@apache.org
*Subject:* Re: Copyright and license questions



I'm not an official answer-person for this list, but I actually
think I've been in these same situations and  have supplied what I learned
from this list and others inline in this color…



*From: *Roberta Marton <roberta.marton@esgyn.com>
*Reply-To: *"legal-discuss@apache.org" <legal-discuss@apache.org>
*Date: *Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 3:41 PM
*To: *"legal-discuss@apache.org" <legal-discuss@apache.org>
*Subject: *Copyright and license questions



I am the release manager for Apache Trafodion incubator and we are trying
to resolve some license/copyright issues in order to perform our first
release.

I have reviewed the Apache web pages regarding license and notice file
several times but still need some clarification.  One of our mentors
suggested I send my questions to this list.



Question 1: How to handle a Copyright on top of an Apache copyright



In our code, we include a file that contains a copyright on top of an
Apache license.  In this case, the Copyright is from the company that
donated the code.

For example:



*Copyright 2013 <company name of a project that is not Apache>*



*Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");*

*you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.*

*. . .*

*limitations under the License.*

* @author: <someone’s name>*



>From apache documentation (http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html):



*If the source file is submitted with a copyright notice included in it,
the copyright owner (or owner's agent) must either:*

   1. *remove such notices, or*
   2. *move them to the NOTICE file associated with each applicable project
   release, or*
   3. *provide written permission for the ASF to make such removal or
   relocation of the notices.*



and



*BUNDLING AN APACHE-2.0-LICENSED DEPENDENCY*

*Assuming once again that that the bundled dependency itself contains no
bundled subcomponents under other licenses and thus the ALv2 applies
uniformly to all files, there is no need to modify **LICENSE**.*

*If the dependency supplies a **NOTICE** file, its contents must be
analyzed and the relevant portions bubbled up into the top-level **NOTICE*
* file.*



What does it mean if the “dependency supplies a NOTICE file”?  In this
context, is a NOTICE file the same as a copyright notice?



AH: In many Apache licensed releases, there is an actual file called NOTICE
(or NOTICE.txt).  So no, the NOTICE file isn't the same as the copyright
line in a file, but does often contain copyright information.



So

-          should I just remove the copyright notice since it is covered by
Apache code

-          should I add something to the notice file (and leave the
copyright in the source as is), for example

“This software contains code donated by <company name> licensed under
Apache version 2.0, author <author name>”

-          should I add this copyright information to the LICENSE file?

-     other?



AH: You need to be the copyright holder or authorized by the copyright
holder to touch copyright lines in a file.  When I bring in code bases from
my employer, my employer's legal team grants me permission to move the
copyright notices to the NOTICE file.  When I brought in a code base that
had a former employee's copyright in it (the files were acquired in
an acquisition), we got written permission to move the copyrights from the
former employee by having him send an email to our dev@ list.



So, assuming you work for the company providing the code, you can move the
copyright but you might want to ask someone higher up the management chain
or someone on the legal team for permission first.



Question 2:  How to handle a copyright from a project prior to said project
becoming TLP



In this case, we used code from Phoenix prior to Phoenix becoming TLP.
They are test files and each file contains a Salesforce copyright, and we
have made several modifications to the files.



*Copyright (c) 2013, Salesforce.com, Inc.*

*All rights reserved.*



* Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without*

*modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are
met:*

*. . .*

*OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.*



We don’t have plans to pick up a more recent version of these test files
and want to keep using the same files that we significantly modified.  I
assume then that the files are not part of Apache but from the prior
Salesforce license.



AH:  Originally, every line of code in that file was owned by SalesForce.
If you can find a copy of every line owned by SalesForce in the Phoenix
version control then you can claim that you are using the Apache version.
But it has to be every line.  It doesn't have to be in the latest version,
so you may need to snoop through Phoenix change history to see what the
lines looked like when SalesForce licensed those lines to Apache.  Any
SalesForce-owned lines in your copy that you can't find in Apache versions
is technically still owned by SalesForce, and assuming the license is
Apache-compatible, you can treat it as a third-party work.  So it really
matters whether you decide that file is now all-Apache (AL) or still 3rd
Party (3P).



I looked on the following web page, but unfortunately it tells you what
needs to be done but does not tell you how or show examples

   http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html#redistribution:



Given the case from the above and from the web page:



*You must give any other recipients of the Work or Derivative Works a copy
of this License* –

Would just leaving the copyright/license in the source suffice? or

AH: If 3P, don't touch the headers.  If AL, update to the header that
Phoenix is using.

Do you need to add license information to the LICENSE file?

AH: If 3P, yes, if AL, no unless there is stuff in the Phoenix LICENSE
directly related to these lines of code



*You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices stating that
You changed the files* –

Is adding our own Apache copyright and/or modified license on top
sufficient?

AH: If 3P, don't touch the headers.  When you mention these files in
LICENSE, I think you can mention that you modified those files.  And if you
decide to mention your modifications in the file itself, I would do it
below the header or in the comments of the modifications itself.

Should we just add a statement indicating that the files were modified by
us? I have seen the following in other Apache projects, is this sufficient?

   Copyright (c) 2010-2011 <company>

   *With some minor modifications for Apache <project>*.

*You must retain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works that You
distribute, all copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices from
the Source form of the Work, excluding those notices that do not pertain to
any part of the Derivative Works*

I assume this means that we don’t remove existing any copyrights, etc. from
the source files

AH: Correct if 3P.

*If the Work includes a "NOTICE" text file as part of its distribution,
then any Derivative Works that You distribute must include a readable copy
of the attribution notices contained within such NOTICE file* …

I assume we need to add something to the NOTICE file, what is an
attribution notice?

 AH:  Whether 3P or AL, you would add anything in any NOTICE file that come
with those files to your NOTICE file.  If no NOTICE file and the file is 3P
and not under AL, the non-AL license may also stipulate things that must go
in the NOTICE file.



Question 3 – Embedded copyrights



In general, I am scanning the code looking for Copyrights that are not
Apache and making sure they are addressed in a correct manner.  In one of
the files that we use from Sencha, there is a main copyright at the top of
the file and then there are several copyrights embedded within the file.
Do I need to include all copyrights in the file in the LICENSE file or can
I just include the main one.  The copyrights are all based on the MIT
license.



AH:  There is a preference to not include other license text in the LICENSE
file.  IOW, the LICENSE file starts with the full AL text, then a series of
blurbs like: "This product bundles Sencha's Foo 1.2.3 which is available
under the MIT License.  For details see <path to LICENSE file in a folder
for those files, or maybe the actual file itself>"  So no copyrights of any
sort need to be included in LICENSE if you use that pattern.



HTH,

-Alex

Mime
View raw message