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 Sat, 17 Sep 2016 03:12:36 GMT
Where's the unsureness?

Roy spaketh, Jim blesseth with VP water.

I disagreed, but that is by the by.


On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 6:37 PM, John D. Ament <johndament@apache.org>

> Its a bit more complicated.  As I understand it from Roman, Apache MADLib
> is comprised of a subset of the original authors.  Many of the authors were
> unavailable to approve the donation to the ASF, as a result, the source
> code from those contributors can't be relicensed.
> However, this shouldn't stop the source code created by all current
> contributors from being relicensed.  One of the struggles this podling is
> facing is that they're unsure how to license files that are modified while
> developed at Apache.
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 1:02 PM Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com> wrote:
>> One of my employer's attorneys said that it doesn't matter if a file is
>> missing a header.  It doesn't change the licensing or ownership of the IP
>> in the file.  Headers are mainly a convenient sign-post about who owns the
>> contents and what you can do with it.  Thus, AIUI, the reason we tell
>> committers not to change headers of third-party code at the ASF is just so
>> folks don't accidentally change the headers in a way that misrepresents the
>> ownership and licensing of the content, and also, I think, because the
>> "master copy" lives somewhere else and we aren't the owners or have an
>> agreement that allows us to make such changes.
>> If there are lines of code in an ASF repo whose owner has not indicated
>> their desire for donation, then the ASF doesn't own that file.  It is
>> third-party, and AIUI, it has a "home" somewhere, where "home" is where, in
>> an ideal world, the "master copy" lives.  For MadLib, it looks like the
>> adopted home for these lines is at the ASF.  That is unusual, but I guess
>> it is ok.
>> But then I would say that since we've adopted that code but it hasn't
>> been donated, the header really should contain the official BSD license,
>> even with the "don't remove me" since that really is the case.  Until the
>> lines of code that haven't been donated have been truly removed, there
>> should be a signpost saying that some of this code is actually under BSD.
>> If there are other lines of code in a file that have been donated, then add
>> the ASF header as well.
>> IOW, my thinking is that you can move a community without getting every
>> past community member to assent, but you can't re-license code without
>> every line's owner's assent.
>> Apache Madlib committers are now committers to the master copy of these
>> files and thus can change the headers because no objections have been
>> raised to moving the community to the ASF, but the ASF doesn't have
>> permission to re-license.  The owners of any lines of code that were not
>> donated could voice an objection some day and said code would have to be
>> removed.  So while the committers can muck with these headers, they are
>> obligated to apply the proper signposts for the content which would be the
>> full BSD license.
>> Of course, I could be wrong.
>> -Alex
>> From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <stain@apache.org>
>> Reply-To: "legal-discuss@apache.org" <legal-discuss@apache.org>
>> Date: Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 1:34 AM
>> To: "legal-discuss@apache.org" <legal-discuss@apache.org>
>> Subject: Re: Adding non-ASF licensing headers to an Incubating project
>> code base
>> Nothing like waking up sleeping license dogs.. :)
>> I don't see what is the issue with retrospectively adding that
>> informative BSD-license header, particularly as it does not claim copyright
>> and don't add the actual license (which has a "don't remove me" requirement)
>> As this issue comes up every time an madlib release is proposed, then it
>> would likewise be an issue for any third-parties trying to legally review
>> madlib.
>> I understand the files are too many to all be listed in NOTICE, so then
>> such a header would be good to indicate the status of the file.
>> On 8 Sep 2016 1:38 a.m., "John D. Ament" <johndament@apache.org> wrote:
>>> Apologies for the really late response on this, but wanted to get more
>>> insight.
>>> I'm a little puzzled why we have BSD licensed code in an Apache
>>> project.  Was there an SGA executed for MADLib to convert it to Apache
>>> License?
>>> John
>>> On 2016-03-01 21:40 (-0400), Roman Shaposhnik <roman@shaposhnik.org>
>>> wrote:
>>> > Hi!
>>> >
>>> > during the review of Apache MADlib (incubating) release
>>> > an issue came up that I'd like to ask for legal-discuss
>>> > opinion on.
>>> >
>>> > The issue has to do with the bulk of MADlib code base
>>> > licensed under the 2-clause BSD license but individual
>>> > files lacking explicit license headers. E.g.:
>>> >     https://github.com/madlib/madlib/blob/placeholder/src/
>>> modules/linalg/average.cpp
>>> >
>>> > Given that the project had multiple contributors I felt
>>> > like ASF MADlib community turning around and
>>> > unilaterally adding BSD license headers might not be
>>> > acceptable. However, some of the IPMC members feel
>>> > that adding something minimal E.g.:
>>> >
>>> >  /* This file is available under a BSD-2-clause license -- see LICENSE
>>> */
>>> >
>>> > is desirable.
>>> >
>>> > Thoughts 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
>>> >
>>> >
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org

View raw message