www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Roy T. Fielding" <field...@gbiv.com>
Subject Re: Adding non-ASF licensing headers to an Incubating project code base
Date Wed, 02 Mar 2016 23:16:08 GMT
> On Mar 2, 2016, at 3:10 PM, Henri Yandell <bayard@apache.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com <mailto:fielding@gbiv.com>>
> > On Mar 2, 2016, at 11:29 AM, Henri Yandell <bayard@apache.org <mailto:bayard@apache.org>>
> >
> > Adjusting:
> >
> >   If all lines in the file are covered by CLA/SGA then add ASF header
> >   Else if some lines in the file are covered by CLA/SGA then add ASF header (plus
the below).
> >
> >   If some (or all) lines in a file are _NOT_ covered by CLA/SGA:
> >      If you have reason to believe the contributor expected the file to be part
of a BSD package, add BSD header
> >      Else add a note that licensing is unknown and try to replace that file (or
those lines) before graduation.
> No.  Add an ASF header if we manage the code because it satisfies the BSD conditions
and satisfies
> our conditions, regardless of the existence of any other licensing statements within
a file.
> There is no requirement to ADD a BSD header, anywhere.
> If a BSD header already exists, don't remove it unless all of the COPYRIGHT OWNERS of
> that specific file's contents agree (NOT all contributors); make it subsidiary to the
ASF header
> and clear that BSD applies only to the original code.
> Under no circumstances do we add a BSD header that doesn't already exist.  Adding BSD
to an
> overall LICENSE or README file is fine; we are under no obligation to create notices
> did not already exist, nor is it reasonable to assume the original developers wanted
> So you would be happy providing source files that indicates it is under Apache 2.0 and
does not call out that it contains BSD licensing other than in a LICENSE/README?

Yes, the Apache License 2.0 is a superset of the BSD license.

> If we were providing the file with no source header; I would agree. As it is though,
we are adding an incorrect source header unless we modify our source header to say "Partly
Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more...".

Then you should fix the header to say something accurate.  It doesn't have to be verbose,
but it does need to be accurate, like "Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF)
under the BSD license and/or one or more ...."


View raw message