Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 43AF21810D for ; Thu, 3 Dec 2015 17:24:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 42449 invoked by uid 500); 3 Dec 2015 17:24:53 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 42294 invoked by uid 500); 3 Dec 2015 17:24:53 -0000 Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: Reply-To: legal-discuss@apache.org List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list legal-discuss@apache.org Received: (qmail 42283 invoked by uid 99); 3 Dec 2015 17:24:53 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO spamd3-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 03 Dec 2015 17:24:53 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd3-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd3-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id A0C9B180975 for ; Thu, 3 Dec 2015 17:24:52 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd3-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.901 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.901 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=3, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: spamd3-us-west.apache.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=esgyn.com Received: from mx1-eu-west.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd3-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.10]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WdECMvV8kkPz for ; Thu, 3 Dec 2015 17:24:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ob0-f179.google.com (mail-ob0-f179.google.com [209.85.214.179]) by mx1-eu-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-eu-west.apache.org) with ESMTPS id 72A4F2059A for ; Thu, 3 Dec 2015 17:24:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: by obcse5 with SMTP id se5so53316152obc.3 for ; Thu, 03 Dec 2015 09:24:39 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=esgyn.com; s=google; h=from:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:thread-index:date :message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=EURcleKFKeydweMr6+0QROBaZTxN/V3Adwnrb/5gxaQ=; b=b5deyCt45GUBestuLajxLK49ymQicmodxcaRBq0ydeC2W3PMBvIsTJbHE/cFaUYIQw IoZvvHWuWSCySu3NVKLFOFEl8XPxReCvPocB0Quj9BV35lqGkghBTT6vmYJLBa0KOwEv BnxZ/OFUsnf7neOcW7NdCwZQtJ9iu1m+Aerdk= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:references:in-reply-to:mime-version :thread-index:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=EURcleKFKeydweMr6+0QROBaZTxN/V3Adwnrb/5gxaQ=; b=Swj1oDtjSJpMolzNDLFGCtIc2FEls6LItJsXFnvRYnr6x1+MOWbEGOA5lEG5J5BNvF +46gW/QYka9Px5dYellhLJ1UgwTsmRCbEJsMv+gubzucnDh9+mmHWwPOCSnfLbz6jW7v i6SITb/8J0ZrT7YUEsCn89KlofhSwMz9yF2tGWgCKZN7dD5QdlMKs06+0TMV77wDLJ6u TgDralMoENLP7WQr8nEYsvMpfBEOquB7R4dk7TpVqYZ5tux8PTsutInf5VzE7tPU7kdf 4yPVkIZVVhevrkSJHqyKGYi28eKP4rY13qCtBpvs9sRVasvqwNot079g8LzPIzKqpjWF hblw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlWk6uzNIRlVRTaCATIbxtUVbhd2WUoNxAAiWZEB6HDDme/SN2lOzZctMCT6OehblbLsfGy X-Received: by 10.60.82.168 with SMTP id j8mr9133924oey.39.1449163479122; Thu, 03 Dec 2015 09:24:39 -0800 (PST) From: Roberta Marton References: <3092a5202af15f307a30ab904e35ed1f@mail.gmail.com> <73d709449806c0b69d32741d111b1253@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0 Thread-Index: AQFcaf4SAK8Zcla96uGTqQ4VUOTKWwEQOuaMAvpWggIBm3FOVwICNYxIAaz/oIifWF2owA== Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 09:24:10 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: RE: Copyright and license questions To: legal-discuss@apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b6726de6519be052601aaaa --047d7b6726de6519be052601aaaa Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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=E2=80=99s 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 *Reply-To: *"legal-discuss@apache.org" *Date: *Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 10:30 AM *To: *"legal-discuss@apache.org" *Subject: *RE: Copyright and license questions Thanks, another question. What is Apache=E2=80=99s policy regarding Artistic License 2? I don=E2=80= =99t 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 *Reply-To: *"legal-discuss@apache.org" *Date: *Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 8:46 AM *To: *"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=E2=80=A6 *From: *Roberta Marton *Reply-To: *"legal-discuss@apache.org" *Date: *Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 3:41 PM *To: *"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 * *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: * >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 =E2=80=9Cdependency supplies a NOTICE file=E2=80= =9D? 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 =E2=80=9CThis software contains code donated by licensed und= er Apache version 2.0, author =E2=80=9D - 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=E2=80=99t 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* =E2=80=93 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* =E2=80=93 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 *With some minor modifications for Apache *. *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=E2=80=99t remove existing any copyrights, e= tc. 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* =E2=80=A6 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 =E2=80=93 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 " So no copyrights of any sort need to be included in LICENSE if you use that pattern. HTH, -Alex --047d7b6726de6519be052601aaaa Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <= div class=3D"WordSection1">

Thanks Alex for your advice on the Artistic License issue.

<= p class=3D"MsoNormal">We decided to just remo= ve the dependency which worked out for the best because we did some code cl= eanup in the process.

=C2=A0

However, I am still having difficulty figuring out what goes in the LI= CENSE file and what goes in the NOTICE.=C2=A0 I have read the Apache guidel= ines several times but am still unclear.=C2=A0 Let=E2=80=99s take a simple = example.

=C2= =A0

The foll= owing copyright notice exists in code donated to Apache.=C2=A0 It is assume= to be third party work.

We made changes to the third party code.

=C2=A0

So, what gets added to LICENSE and wha= t gets added to NOTICE?=C2=A0 I have looked at many other projects and they= all to do it differently.

=C2=A0

/****************************************************************= ***************

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

* All rights reserved.

*

=C2=A0* Redistribution and use in s= ource and binary forms, with or without

* modification, are permitted provided that th= e following conditions are met:

*

=C2=A0*=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Redistributions of source code = must retain the above copyright notice,

*=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 this list of conditi= ons and the following disclaimer.

*=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Redistributions in binary = form must reproduce the above copyright notice,

*=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 this list of= conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation

*=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0 and/or other materials provided with the distribution.

*=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 N= either the name of Salesforce.com nor the names of its contributors may

=C2=A0*=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 be used to endorse or promote products derived from this= software without

=C2=A0*=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 specific prior written permission.

*

=C2=A0* THIS SOFTWARE= IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AN= D

* ANY EXP= RESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED

* WARRANTIES OF= MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE

* DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SH= ALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE

=C2=A0* FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, I= NCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL

=C2=A0* DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LI= MITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR

=C2=A0* SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR P= ROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER

=C2=A0* CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILIT= Y, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY,

=C2=A0* OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTH= ERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE

=C2=A0* OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF= THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

*****************************************************= *************************/

=C2=A0

What I have done is add the above= text to the LICENSE file with a note that we made changes.=C2=A0 I did not= change the NOTICE file.

=C2=A0

=C2=A0=C2=A0 Regards,

=C2=A0=C2=A0 Roberta

=C2=A0

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

=C2=A0

I don't see it listed either.=C2= =A0 If your situation is different from=C2=A0https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-2= 17=C2=A0I would recommend opening a new LEGAL issue for your situation.=

=C2=A0

HTH,

-Alex

= =C2=A0

From: Roberta Marton <= roberta.marton@esgyn.com>= ;
Reply-To: "leg= al-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: Cop= yright and license questions

=C2=A0

Thanks, another quest= ion.

=C2=A0

What is Apache=E2= =80=99s policy regarding Artistic License 2?=C2=A0 I don=E2=80=99t see it l= isted in the okay to include nor in the not okay to include.

=C2=A0

=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Roberta

=C2=A0

From: Alex Harui [mailto:aharui@adobe.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 2= , 2015 10:08 AM
To: l= egal-discuss@apache.org
Subject: Re: Copyright and license qu= estions

=C2=A0

I think I only saw one follow-up question.=C2=A0 Did I= miss one?

=C2=A0

Regarding a Facebook copyright in = a file.=C2=A0 It sounds like that file is under the Apache License 2.0.=C2= =A0 But because that file has not been granted to the ASF it is still consi= dered 3P.

=C2=A0

The how-to says that you don't= have to mention AL files in LICENSE, but these archives also include a thr= ead I was involved in where a couple of people approved a patch that change= s 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 abou= t non-ASF bundles.=C2=A0 That patch hasn't been applied yet.

=C2=A0

For my releases, I use pointers, and list non-ASF bundl= es even if they are under AL.=C2=A0 IMO, it isn't shouldn't be a re= lease-blocker either way since the main goal is make sure consumers feel co= nfident that they know what ingredients might need consideration.=C2=A0 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 th= eir changes.

=C2=A0=

HTH,

-Alex

=C2=A0

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

=

=C2=A0

Alex - thanks for your an= swers.=C2=A0 They are very helpful.

=C2=A0

A few follow-up questions.=

=C2=A0

In the first case, the code contains a Facebook copyrigh= t so it is a third party tool to us.=C2=A0 I should then be able to handle = it through 3P rules. =C2=A0=C2=A0But I was curious because the license text= is from Apache so maybe I would not need to put anything in the LICENSE fi= le.

=C2=A0=

I did notice in th= e documentation that it recommended putting pointers to license text.=C2=A0= However, when I look at other projects, they mostly tend to put in the act= ual license text.=C2=A0 But it is much cleaner to add pointers. Will try to= do this as much as possible.

=

=C2=A0

=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0Regards,

=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Roberta

=C2= =A0

From: Roberta Marton <roberta.marton@esgyn.com>
= Reply-To: "legal-di= scuss@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 l= icense questions

=C2=A0

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

I have rev= iewed the Apache web pages regarding license and notice file several times = but still need some clarification.=C2=A0 One of our mentors suggested I sen= d my questions to this list.

=C2=A0

Question 1: How to handle a Copyright on top of an Apache copyrig= ht

=C2=A0

In our code, we in= clude a file that contains a copyright on top of an Apache license.=C2=A0 I= n this case, the Copyright is from the company that donated the code.

For example:=

=C2=A0

Copyright 2013 <compa= ny name of a project that is not Apache>

=C2= =A0

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.

=C2=A0@author: <someone=E2=80=99s name>

=C2=A0

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

=C2=A0

If the source file is su= bmitted with a copyright notice included in it, the copyright owner (or own= er's agent) must either:<= /p>
  1. remove such notices, or<= /i>
  2. mov= e them to the NOTICE file associated with each applicable project release, = or
  3. provide written permission for the ASF to make such removal or reloc= ation of the notices.

=C2=A0

and

=C2=A0

<= span style=3D"font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif= ;color:#303284;text-transform:uppercase">BUNDLING AN APACHE-2.0-LICENSED DE= PENDENCY

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 n= o need to modify=C2=A0LICENSE.

If the dependency supplies a=C2=A0<= /span>NOTICE=C2=A0file, its content= s must be analyzed and the relevant portions bubbled up into the top-level= =C2=A0NOTICE=C2=A0file.

=C2=A0

What does it mean if the =E2=80=9Cdependency supplies a NOTIC= E file=E2=80=9D?=C2=A0 In this context, is a NOTICE file the same as a copy= right notice?

= =C2=A0

= AH: In many Apache licensed releases, there is an actual file called NOTICE= (or NOTICE.txt).=C2=A0 So no, the NOTICE file isn't the same as the co= pyright line in a file, but does often contain copyright information.

<= span style=3D"font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",seri= f;color:black">=C2=A0

So

-=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 should I jus= t remove the copyright notice since it is covered by Apache code

-= =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0 should I add something to the notice file (and l= eave the copyright in the source as is), for example

<= span style=3D"font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:bl= ack">=E2=80=9CThis software contains code donated by <company name> l= icensed under Apache version 2.0, author <author name>=E2=80=9D

-=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0=C2=A0 should I add this copyright information to= the LICENSE file?

-=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 other?

=C2=A0

AH: You need to be the copyright holder or authorized by the copyrig= ht holder to touch copyright lines in a file.=C2=A0 When=C2=A0I bring in co= de bases from my employer, my employer's legal team grants me permissio= n to move the copyright notices to the NOTICE file.=C2=A0 When=C2=A0I broug= ht in a code base that had a former employee's copyright in it (the fil= es were acquired in an=C2=A0acquisition), we got written permission to move= the copyrights from the former employee by having him send an email to our= dev@ list.

=C2=A0

So, assuming y= ou 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.

=C2=A0

Question 2: =C2=A0How to handle a copyright from = a project prior to said project becoming TLP

=C2=A0

In this case, we used code from Phoenix prior to Ph= oenix becoming TLP.=C2=A0 They are test files and each file contains a Sale= sforce copyright, and we have made several modifications to the files.

=C2=A0

<= p class=3D"MsoNormal">Copyright (c) 2013, = Salesforce.com, Inc.

All rights reserved.

=C2=A0

=C2=A0Redis= tribution 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 DAM= AGE.

=C2=A0

We don=E2=80=99= 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.=C2=A0 I assume= then that the files are not part of Apache but from the prior Salesforce l= icense.

=C2=A0=

AH: = =C2=A0Originally, every line of code in that file was owned by SalesForce.= =C2=A0 If you can find a copy of every line owned by SalesForce in the Phoe= nix version control then you can claim that you are using the Apache versio= n.=C2=A0 But it has to be every line.=C2=A0 It doesn't have to be in th= e latest version, so you may need to snoop through Phoenix change history t= o see what the lines looked like when SalesForce licensed those lines to Ap= ache.=C2=A0 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.= =C2=A0 So it really matters whether you decide that file is now all-Apache = (AL) or still 3rd Party (3P).

=

=C2=A0

I looked on the following web page, but unfortunately i= t tells you what needs to be done but does not tell you how or show example= s

=C2=A0 =C2=A0http://www= .apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html#redistribution:

=C2=A0

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

=C2=A0

You= must give any other recipients of the Work or Derivative Works a copy of t= his License =E2=80=93

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

=

AH: If 3P, don't to= uch the headers.=C2=A0 If AL, update to the header that Phoenix is using.

Do you need t= o add license information to the LICENSE file?

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

=C2=A0

= You must cause any modified files to carry promi= nent notices stating that You changed the files =E2=80=93

Is add= ing our own Apache copyright and/or modified license on top sufficient?

AH: If 3P, don't touch the headers.=C2=A0 When= you mention these files in LICENSE,=C2=A0I think you can mention that you = modified those files.=C2=A0 And if you decide to mention your=C2=A0modifica= tions in the file itself,=C2=A0I would do it below the header or in the com= ments of the=C2=A0modifications itself.<= /span>

Should we just add a statement indicating that = the files were modified by=C2=A0 us? I have seen the following in other Apa= che projects, is this sufficient?=

=C2=A0=C2=A0 Copyright (c) 2010-2011 <company>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0With some minor modifi= cations for Apache <project>.<= /span>

You must ret= ain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works that You distribute, all co= pyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices from the Source form of= the Work, excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of the D= erivative Works

I assu= me this means that we don=E2=80=99t remove existing any copyrights, etc. fr= om the source files

AH: Correct if 3P. =C2=A0

If the Work includes a "NOTICE&q= uot; text file as part of its distribution, then any Derivative Works that = You distribute must include a readable copy of the attribution notices cont= ained within such NOTICE file =E2=80= =A6

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

=C2=A0AH: =C2=A0Whether 3P or AL, you would add anything in any N= OTICE file that come with those files to your NOTICE file.=C2=A0 If no NOTI= CE file and the file is 3P and not under AL, the non-AL license may also st= ipulate things that must go in the NOTICE file.

= =C2=A0

Question 3 =E2=80=93 Embedded c= opyrights

=C2= =A0

In general= , I am scanning the code looking for Copyrights that are not Apache and mak= ing sure they are addressed in a correct manner.=C2=A0 In one of the files = that we use from Sencha, there is a main copyright at the top of the file a= nd then there are several copyrights embedded within the file.=C2=A0 Do I n= eed to include all copyrights in the file in the LICENSE file or can I just= include the main one.=C2=A0 The copyrights are all based on the MIT licens= e.

=C2=A0

AH: =C2=A0T= here is a=C2=A0preference to not include other license text in the LICENSE = file.=C2=A0 IOW, the LICENSE file starts with the full AL text, then a seri= es of blurbs like: "This product bundles Sencha's Foo 1.2.3 which = is available under the MIT License.=C2=A0 For details see <path to LICEN= SE file in a folder for those files, or maybe the actual file itself>&qu= ot; =C2=A0So no copyrights of any sort need to be included in LICENSE if yo= u use that pattern.

=C2=A0

HTH,

-Alex

=C2=A0

--047d7b6726de6519be052601aaaa--