www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com>
Subject Re: Is it OK to remove MIT header in this case?
Date Tue, 02 May 2017 00:49:49 GMT


On 5/1/17, 5:31 PM, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote:

>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.

Well, Adobe Legal had a different opinion, although I think we focused the
discussion on extracting the code bodies and not the comments, which I am
extracting now.  I'm not going to argue with you on it, I'm just trying to
get a release out.

So how do I go about doing that labeling?  No header with a comment? Or
ASF header with comment?, Original MIT License with comment?  Something
else?  Add to NOTICE?

My guess would be: 
-ASF Header since it is part of collective work.
-Comment in file under ASF header: "This file is in Google Closure
Compiler Externs format which is a non-copyrightable subset of <Github URL
to original source>".
-Add to LICENSE: "<path to file> is a non-copyrightable subset of <GitHub
URL to original source>"

Thoughts?
-Alex


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

Mime
View raw message