www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Henri Yandell <bay...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Adding non-ASF licensing headers to an Incubating project code base
Date Thu, 03 Mar 2016 00:01:58 GMT
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

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 */

Hen

Mime
View raw message