Thanks for the review guys, will come back to dev@ list to update the release artifacts.
- Henry On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 4:24 PM, Josh Elser <els...@apache.org> wrote: > Marvin Humphrey wrote: > >> On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 2:28 PM, Henry Saputra<henry.sapu...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> The question is whether we need to keep this section: >>> >>> Portions of this software were developed by Twitter. >>> Copyright Twitter, 2017 >>> >>> in the NOTICE file. Since Twitter already signed off the source >>> contributions, we could probably remove this section. >>> >> >> Only Twitter's authorized representative may legally remove Twitter's >> copyright notice. Everyone else must leave it alone. >> >> Unless something unusual has occurred (like a new SGA from Twitter in >> 2017), >> there should not have been a need to update Twitter's copyright. Josh was >> right to flag that as weird. >> >> Sijie, I see that it was your commit that changed the copyright year in >> NOTICE. It was correct to update the ASF copyright, so please leave that >> as >> 2017 (and continue to updated it in future years). For the Twitter >> copyright, >> please either restore the 2016 date or discuss any unusual circumstances. >> (Feel free to ask questions, we're here to help.) >> >> Josh was also right to flag the addition of the "Copyright 2017 The Apache >> Software Foundation" notices in source headers. >> >> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#headers >> >> 2. Each source file should include the following license header -- >> note >> that there should be no copyright notice in the header: >> >> For individual files, contributors continue to hold copyright on their >> contributions. The ASF (unlike some other entities such as the FSF) does >> not >> require copyright assignment. Thus the ASF only holds copyright in the >> collection; that's what's expressed in the NOTICE file ASF copyright >> notice. >> >> Marvin Humphrey >> > > Marvin -- you said it much better than I could have :). Thank you for the > clarity on this one. > > Sijie, just to clarify, the original request by John to update > DistributedLog's copyright year was _just_ for DistributedLog's copyright. > As Marvin points out, you should never be modifying the copyright from any > bundled software (unless you are changing that bundled software and the > copyright also changed ;)) >
