On 8/20/15, 9:26 AM, "Benson Margulies" <bimargul...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >However, a quick search reveals that there are precisely zero >occurrences of the word 'release' in version 2.0 of the Apache >License. > >So, I don't know what Jim meant by 'licenses kick in at release', but >my view is that putting source in a public Subversion server or git >repo is a publication in the legal sense, and that the Foundation >grants the Apache license to that content, since we nowhere >communicate that we grant some other (lack of) license until the point >of release. To me, the plain sense of Jim's phrase is that, somehow, >the AL does not apply until there's a release, and I can't make heads >or tails of that. I assumed Jim meant that the public should not feel certain that the AL header is correct on items found in the repo, but should feel more certain it is correct for files in a release, since, supposedly, a bit more scrutiny about the headers happened in creating the release. IIRC, one of my employer’s lawyers said that the AL applies to any code written to be under AL whether it has the header or not. Headers are a convenient signpost, but are not required to connect licensing and copyright to lines of code. -Alex
