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: Bundling and LICENSE
Date Sun, 25 Sep 2016 07:32:31 GMT
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:51 PM, Justin Mclean <justin@classsoftware.com>

> Hi,
> Where this is not easy is where the copyright holders are unclear - if
> upstream have no explicit copyright statement but just a generic license,
> it can be tricky to derive which are the legal entities owning copyright,
> particularly on GitHub projects with multiple contributors.
> That is indeed where it becomes a little unclear, there are 14
> contributors to the repo [1] one main one (who looks to be no longer
> involved) and 3 other significant ones. There’s no obvious connection
> between them and designmodo (that I could find) other than they contributed
> to this repo. The license was originally CC BY 3.0 but changed to MIT in
> 2013 early in the projects history. [2] Their web site does claim copyright
> [3] but copyright is not stated on the github repo (even under the
> copyright and license section) [4]. So while it may be reasonable to
> assume designmodo are the copyright owners it's certainly possible that the
> other contributors have claims as well. Would the best course of action to
> contact the 4 main contributors and ask? Or use the line “Copyright 2016
> designmodo and others” or similar in the license?
Add an MIT source header. Don't add a Copyright statement.

> Given the IP provenance and copyright may not be quite as clear as we
> first thought it is it still OK to have this code in a release? (until the
> above is sorted that is).

That seems normal for Open Source. There a bunch of copyright holders - no
biggy unless you think there's something there that indicates that the
license from each is not MIT. The CC-BY -> MIT relicense could be a concern
if you feel there is a significant risk of copyright holders who did not
give permission for their code to be relicensed (and if the original
license is a concern; which we have CC-BY flagged as).


View raw message