Actually, my rewording is still not quite right, because it implies that the copyright holders of work going through IP Clearance should expect their copyright statements to be moved to NOTICE. This would actually be very unusual, in much the same way as it would be unusual for me (as a committer on the project) to expect to have my own copyright notice in NOTICE.
So perhaps a better wording might be: ""Check and make sure that the files that have been donated have been updated to use the Apache boilerplate." I guess you could have a bit more info in there saying that copyright and license information is removed. But then you have to get into explaining in which situations copyright information is just removed, and in which situations it is moved to NOTICE. Again though, probably best to spin this off into a new thread, as it is not specific to this particular instance. On 26 June 2013 17:35, Noah Slater <nsla...@apache.org> wrote: > Ah, I see what you are saying. > > I believe this might just be some unfortunate wording in the IP Clearance > template. > > This: > > "Check and make sure that the files that have been donated have been > updated to reflect the new ASF copyright." > > Might be better worded as: > > "Check and make sure that the files that have been donated have been > updated so that copyright and license notices have been moved to NOTICE and > LICENSE respectively, and that the standard Apache boilerplate has been > added." > > Apache does not assert copyright on individual files, whether they are > contributed by committers to a project during the normal course of > development, or whether those files come in through IP Clearance. Apache > does, however, assert copyright on each release, as a collective work. > (There is plenty more on this topic in the legal-discuss archives.) > > I would say that this is nothing specific to Bob's clearance, and does not > block it. But if you like my rewording, or have a better one to propose, I > suggest you start a new thread on general@incubator.apache.org and get > consensus on it. > > > On 26 June 2013 17:27, Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamil...@acm.org> wrote: > >> Under the heading "Copyright" there is an item with text "Check and make >> sure that the papers that transfer rights to the ASF [have] been received. >> It is only necessary to transfer rights for the package, the core code, >> and any new code produced by the project." >> >> In the next box it says >> >> "Check and make sure that the files have been donated have been updated >> to reflect the *new* ASF copyright. ... " [emphasis mine]. >> >> It is my understanding that an SGA is not a transfer of rights but a >> grant of license. This language is all wrong, wherever it comes from. It >> suggests what appears to be a copyright transfer when everything we are >> told around here is that the ASF neither requires nor does such things. >> Furthermore, adding ASF copyright notices in the headers for individual >> files that are otherwise unchanged is very naughty. (Unless, of course, >> there has indeed been a copyright transfer, and I'm not all that sure about >> even that case.) >> >> - Dennis >> >> PS: And, of course, the license grant is about more than the exclusive >> rights of copyright holders, too. In any case, the non-exclusive licenses >> granted in SGAs and CLAs are not transfers. (Since "standing" is much in >> the news today, another way to put it is that the ASF has no power to sue >> for infringement of copyright in the contributed works, nor any patent >> infringement related to the use of the contributed works.) >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Noah Slater [mailto:nsla...@apache.org] >> Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 08:14 AM >> To: general@incubator.apache.org; dennis.hamil...@acm.org >> Subject: Re: [IP CLEARANCE] BigCouch >> >> Dennis, can you clarify your concerns please? >> >> The page you are looking at is generated from a template. Bob has simply >> filled in the dates as he stepped through the process. >> >> Which specific guidelines do you not believe have been followed? >> >> Why do you believe that an SGA has not been filed? >> >> >> On 26 June 2013 16:05, Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamil...@acm.org> >> wrote: >> >> > That page talks about transfer of copyright and addition of Apache >> > copyright notices on the code as imported. Huh? >> > >> > Why aren't the guidelines for transfer of cleaned-up contributions under >> > SGAs being followed, and an SGA being filed that details the >> contribution? >> > >> > - Dennis >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Noah Slater [mailto:nsla...@apache.org] >> > Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 06:03 AM >> > To: general@incubator.apache.org >> > Subject: Re: [IP CLEARANCE] BigCouch >> > >> > Woop! Thanks Bob! +1 >> > >> > >> > On 26 June 2013 13:55, Robert Newson <rnew...@apache.org> wrote: >> > >> > > Cloudant has donated the source code artifact detailed at [1] to the >> ASF. >> > > This email is to request lazy consensus from the IPMC for the IP >> > > clearance of this donation. >> > > >> > > B >> > > >> > > [1] http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/couchdb-bigcouch.html >> > > >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org >> > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > NS >> > >> > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org >> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org >> > >> > >> >> >> -- >> NS >> >> > > > -- > NS > -- NS
