www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com>
Subject Re: Is it ok to put ASF header onto ALv2 compatibly licensed code?
Date Wed, 10 Aug 2016 05:16:15 GMT

On 8/9/16, 6:13 PM, "Justin Mclean" <justin@classsoftware.com> wrote:

>> All of that is fine, but it doesn't address my original, much narrower
>> question. So let me re-state:
>> I have a file that is licensed under MIT but has no header file to say
>In that case to comply with the legal terms of the MIT licence you must
>include the full text of the MIT license and the copyright owner: [1]
>"The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included
>in all copies or substantial portions of the Software."
>It would also need to be made clear that that file was MIT licensed not
>APv2 licensed. The issue here is that if a file doesn’t include a header
>it could be assumed that it’s the file itself is ALv2 licensed (rather
>than the package as a whole).
>INAL but I would either:
>a) Add a MIT header to that file [1] (MIT compliance) and add a pointer
>in LICENSE [2] (ASF policy)
>b) Put the copyright owner/ full text somewhere [1] (MIT compliance) and
>add the file name and a pointer to that in LICENSE [2] (ASF policy)
>c) as b but add a note to the MIT license file saying it’s MIT licensed
>and perhaps a pointer to the full text of the MIT license.
>But as I said INAL and others may have differing opinions.

IMO, there is some way you know this file is under MIT.  I would copy
whatever license text from wherever you found your proof into the LICENSE
file and describe which file is subject to this license.

I said this in the other thread, but AIUI, headers are technically
optional. They are signposts about the licensing of the content.  Having
no header doesn't change the licensing or your ability to defend it.  IMO,
the LICENSE file is the early warning system.  It says, "hey, not
everything in here is under ASF control".  Once you've got the LICENSE
correct, you are done.  Anything else is just trying to improve ease of
consumption.  I wouldn't touch bundled 3rd party headers.  If a volunteer
is motivated enough to modify the upstream "original" that would be

My 2 cents,

View raw message