www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
Subject Re: Question about the "prominent notice" about me changing the file
Date Wed, 28 Dec 2016 18:56:40 GMT
On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 6:53 AM, Avi Kivity <avi@scylladb.com> wrote:
>> What is the license that you make an overall bundle (your changes +
>> original ALv2
>> code) available under?
>
>
> I am making my bundle available under two separate licenses (not
> concurrently), GNU AGPL v3+, and a commercial license.

Ok. So basically on the open source side the entire bundle will be licensed
under AGPL v3+ which will make the overall source bundle permanently
available for anybody to see.

No issue there, but what I was trying to get to is that given the potential
scrutiny you may well decide to be a nice open source citizen (and not just
do the very minimum required of you by the ALv2 terms).

This is the framing of the rest of my suggestions (and you should realize that
all you're getting on this thread are suggestions -- the final advice can only
be given to you by your attorney).

>> At any rate, even though IANAL, I believe that at a very minimum you
>> should
>> be saying "Portions Copyright 2016 Me" line near the top of the file".
>>
>> As a reader of a file that has a structure of:
>>
>> /* ALv2
>>   *
>>   * Copyright 2016 Me
>>   */
>>
>> would make me believe that the entire file is (c) you which may or may not
>> be the case.
>
>
> In Linux, people just assert their copyright, and never explicitly mention
> that it is just a portion they are copyrighting.  See 0515e5999 for an
> example; so I think it's clear there can be multiple authors.

Correct. But see above. All I'm saying is -- the easier you make it for me
as a casual reader to get the information I need as quickly as possible the
better it is. Here's an example of a reverse situation:
     https://github.com/apache/kudu/blob/master/thirdparty/README.txt

I like giving it because I truly feel that Kudu folks went above and beyond
what a permissive license (such as BSD/MIT would require) to be incorporated
into the overall ALv2 licensed code base: not only did they separate ALv2
changes into patches they apply on top of external code bases but they
also provided a README and LICENSE for me to feel really comfortable
about ingesting their work.

Of course, I can only use this example as an inspiration, a carrot if you will.
I think you'll be well within your right using the very minimum (c) notice.
Ultimately the choice is yours.

Thanks,
Roman.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org


Mime
View raw message