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 Wed, 02 Mar 2016 08:51:21 GMT
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 12:39 AM, Henri Yandell <bayard@apache.org> wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 12:11 AM, Justin Mclean <justin@classsoftware.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> 1) Put this in the LICENSE file (after Apache 2.0 text):
>>
>>
>> Isn't the short form i.e. point to full text preferred?
>>
>
> ? Not understanding.
>

Just twigged what you meant. Sorry for slowness :)

ie) you mean a line in the LICENSE file that points to LICENSE.BSD. That
could be done too.

Stylistically I am more likely to lean towards that when the products can
easily be separated again. So I like a jar file's separate licensing to be
in a separate file etc. However, if the licenses are going to be hard to
separate again, I tend towards sticking them more together. Would be good
at ApacheCon to spend some hackathon time on the subject.


>
>
>>
>> 2) Source header:
>>
>>
>> Perhaps I’m not understanding this but how are we allowed to change the
>> license of 3rd party software from BSD to something else with all of the
>> owners permission? I didn’t think that BSD allowed that?
>>
>
> Thanks. That wasn't my intent with the language ie) I meant to imply
> Apache AND BSD, not Apache WAS BSD..
>
> How about Initial rather than Original; ie:
>
> /* Initial version of this file licensed under the BSD 2-clause license --
> see LICENSE file */   ?
>
> The other question is when to add the Apache source header. Assuming we
> have CLAs that cover enough of the project to affect every file, then I
> believe we could put on now (i.e. the committers have contributed to
> Apache, Apache putting those changes out under Apache 2.0). If however we
> don't have CLAs to cover all the files, then either a) the project could
> add the Apache header as and when they modify those files, or b) we could
> have a different source header; something like 'Modifications, if any, are
> under the Apache License 2.0 (and then have the typical source header after
> that)'.
>
> Roman, any idea how much of the project is covered by CLAs?
>
> Hen
>

Mime
View raw message