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.  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.

....Roy