www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "John D. Ament" <johndam...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Adding non-ASF licensing headers to an Incubating project code base
Date Fri, 16 Sep 2016 01:37:01 GMT
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