www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Roy T. Fielding" <field...@gbiv.com>
Subject Re: Is it OK to remove MIT header in this case?
Date Tue, 02 May 2017 00:31:08 GMT
On Apr 28, 2017, at 1:47 PM, Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com> wrote:
> On 4/26/17, 4:29 PM, "Alex Harui" <aharui@adobe.com> wrote:
>>> Hence, if you want to extract a list of API names without keeping the
>>> original
>>> content that is subject to copyright, the right way to do that is to
>>> extract
>>> only the operable names and then reorder them alphabetically.
>> OK, so if I remove all of the comment text and put all of these files into
>> one file in alphabetical order and throw away the patch and related
>> processing, will that be an original work, or still a derivative work?
> Here is DisplayObject after I removed all comment text and alpha-ordered
> properties and methods.  It would get merged with all of the other files.
> Looking at it now, I probably should have manually generated these files
> in the first place and skipped the whole patch idea.
> https://paste.apache.org/0JSI

A script is a good idea if you have to extract them many times (like when
the upstream code is a moving target).

> And here is the original source, in case anyone is interested:
> https://github.com/CreateJS/EaselJS/blob/0.8.0/src/easeljs/display/DisplayO
> bject.js
> FWIW, I am trying to create an original work because I am only currently
> authorized by Adobe to contribute to Apache, and not to other OSS
> communities.

I don't speak for Adobe legal, but once you have project approval from
management (in this case, for Apache Flex) you are authorized by the
Adobe CCLA to submit code within your work's scope to the ASF.
If Adobe does not own the copyright to that code (e.g., it is public
domain or licensed by some other entity), then you need to indicate that
in the submission: where the source code came from and what, if any,
licensing applies to it.  This is defined in Adobe's CCLA with the ASF.

This does not mean you are submitting to the other project. You are
submitting to the ASF, but it's okay if the upstream project obtains
that same contribution via the ASF.  That would include submitting
MIT-covered code.

In any case, this is still not an original work.  The whole point of
extracting only the operational bits is to remove anything that
might be copyrightable (so that it doesn't even require a license,
at least in theory).  You can submit that too, but it should be labelled
as a non-copyrightable subset of that identified third party source code.
This gives Apache a history it can use to explain things later.


Roy T. Fielding                     <http://roy.gbiv.com/>
Senior Principal Scientist, Adobe   <https://www.adobe.com/>

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

View raw message