www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
Subject Re: Adding non-ASF licensing headers to an Incubating project code base
Date Mon, 07 Mar 2016 05:03:18 GMT
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 7:09 PM, Henri Yandell <bayard@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 5:18 PM, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Mar 2, 2016, at 4:01 PM, Henri Yandell <bayard@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 3:42 PM, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mar 2, 2016, at 3:28 PM, Henri Yandell <bayard@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 3:26 PM, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 2, 2016, at 3:19 PM, Henri Yandell <bayard@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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 ...."
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So rather than this one line being under the standard source header:
>>>>
>>>> /* Initial version of this file licensed under the BSD 2-clause license
>>>> -- see LICENSE file */
>>>>
>>>> You'd prefer to change the source header?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I always prefer to fix a bug rather than add a contradiction.
>>>
>>>
>>> Why is that a contradiction? Is there a way to word that without it being
>>> a contradiction?
>>>
>>>
>>> Because the ASF source header of
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> # Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more
>>> # contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file distributed with
>>> # this work for additional information regarding copyright ownership.
>>> # The ASF licenses this file to You under the Apache License, Version 2.0
>>> # (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with
>>> # the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at
>>>
>>> is either true or not.  If it is true, the licensing of the initial
>>> version is irrelevant
>>> and there would be no mention of BSD.
>>>
>>> In this one special case, we are talking about a file that has been
>>> received under a
>>> BSD license but contains no existing license notice for BSD and has not
>>> been licensed
>>> to the ASF under one or more contributor license agreements.
>>>
>>
>> Noting it's the entire project rather than a single file (though maybe
>> that will decrease if the podling reviews all files and is able to have CLAs
>> for most).
>>
>>>
>>> So, for this special case, we adjust our header to be accurate (or we
>>> include no header
>>> at all and just leave the file as is).  Adding a comment after an
>>> inaccurate ASF header
>>> does not do the trick.
>>>
>>> We don't have the luxury of sticking with our existing policies if the
>>> result would
>>> be a lie.  When I was in charge of this stuff, we didn't have any of
>>> those policies for
>>> precisely this reason: exceptions matter just as much as the rule.
>>
>>
>> I'm struggling with how it would be a lie. Sounds like your position is
>> that Apache source files never mention any other licensing other than the
>> source header; ie) if there was an existing BSD header, you wouldn't keep it
>> there otherwise it would be a lie. For example this would be bad:
>>
>>
>> https://github.com/apache/httpd/blob/12268c5135d1d567aff253bfb9be42826b969ab8/include/ap_regex.h
>>
>>
>> That file has some unnecessary bits, but they are accurate. The file is
>> derived from a BSD licensed work
>> with a copyright notice and an external BSD license. The derived work was
>> contributed under one or more
>> contributor license agreements to the ASF.  The original copyright notice
>> and our ASF header do apply.
>> Why we chose to include the full text of the BSD license here is unknown
>> to me -- that is supposed to be in
>> the project's LICENSE file.
>>
>>
>> Including your 'to ASF' feedback, I don't see why this comment in
>> addition, rather than modification, of our source header would be bad:
>>
>> /* Initial version of this file licensed to the Apache Software Foundation
>> under the BSD 2-clause license -- see LICENSE file */
>>
>>
>> It is completely irrelevant, not "bad". It isn't required by the
>> contributor and has no bearing
>> on whether the ASF header is accurate.
>
>
> Paraphrasing my understanding of your position:  The original had a license
> file in the root, but not on the source. If it had been on the source files,
> then the clauses of BSD would have required keeping it; however as it wasn't
> on the source files, your position is that we are not required to state it
> on the file, so we shouldn't.

FWIW Roy's position was my original position that caused some members
of the IPMC to raise an issue.

I still propose that the podling's release does NOT modify files
that came under the BSD 3-clause license. This, of course,
will be explicitly called out in LICENSE file. In fact, the podling
did it already:
   https://github.com/apache/incubator-madlib/blob/master/LICENSE#L247

It feels to me that this should be sufficient.

Please let me know if you disagree.

>>  The ASF header is the problem, in this case, because
>> it was written to explain why we no longer have a Copyright notice at the
>> top of the file
>> instead of being universal for all mechanisms of contribution.  A far
>> simpler version would be:
>>
>> # Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation, which licenses this file to
>> You under the
>> # Apache License, Version 2.0, as described within the accompanying
>> LICENSE file.
>> # See the NOTICE file, if any, distributed with this work for additional
>> information
>> # regarding copyright ownership.
>>
>>
>
> "which licenses this file to You under the Apache License, Version 2.0" -
> isn't that untrue? We're licensing it to the You, for the parts we have the
> rights to license. Other parts are licensed to the You from the original
> author (or through us depending on jurisdiction).
>
> Is a simpler source header something that should be discussed?

So how do we make progress on deciding whether this is something that is
an absolute MUST for the first release of the podling?

I'd like to argue that it isn't and given the text in LICENSE I linked to
above the podling release can be unblocked.

We may still decide to make it a blocking issue for graduation (which
I'd be more than comfortable with).

Please advise on how to proceed.

Thanks,
Roman.

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


Mime
View raw message