On Oct 4, 2004, at 7:23 AM, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
Jennifer B Machovec wrote:
I thought it might be helpful to give some background on the "all
rights
reserved" phrase. The requirement for this phrase originated in the
Buenos Aires Convention of 1910, which provided that a copyright
owner
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Jennifer B Machovec wrote:
> I thought it might be helpful to give some background on the "all rights
> reserved" phrase. The requirement for this phrase originated in the
> Buenos Aires Convention of 1910, which provided that a copyright owner had
> to make
On Sep 25, 2004, at 11:10 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
everybody on the derby code team: forget the frickin' copyright
issue and just work on the code while we get the legal bunfight
settled.
Didn't I hear someone else (me) say that recently? ;-)
I would be just as happy if the copyrighy discussion,
> everybody on the derby code team: forget the frickin' copyright
> issue and just work on the code while we get the legal bunfight
> settled.
Didn't I hear someone else (me) say that recently? ;-)
I would be just as happy if the copyrighy discussion, which is not Derby
specific, was moved to [E
se respond to general
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc: Derby Development <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject:Re: Derby code copyright question
On Sep 24, 2004, at 4:27 AM, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> okey, after discussing this in seven different directions, we
&g
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
all right, since roy has thrown yet another spanner in the works,
Don't Anybody Do Anything.
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>
>> 1. the NOTICE file (or NOTICE.txt) gets created if it doesn't
>>already exist, and this gets added to it:
>>
>> Portions of Apache D
On Sep 24, 2004, at 4:27 AM, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
okey, after discussing this in seven different directions, we
have a clear conclusion, which i'll summarise here:
A conclusion by whom? The board? Robyn? IBM?
1. the NOTICE file (or NOTICE.txt) gets created if it doesn't
already exist
Excellent solution!
-dain
On Sep 24, 2004, at 4:27 AM, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
okey, after discussing this in seven different directions, we
have a clear conclusion, which i'll summarise here:
1. the NOTICE file (or NOTICE.txt) gets created if it doesn't
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> the procedure above, which has finally been clarified,
> should be used by the incubator folks to update
> http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html at some point.
Would you please create an issue in JIRA for it, do it, or otherwise create
a tickler? And should
Thanks for taking care of this, but there's something I don't
understand :
Once all the copyright at the top of files are converted to (c) ASF,
which portions would still be (c) IBM?
geir
On Sep 24, 2004, at 7:27 AM, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
okey, after d
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
okey, after discussing this in seven different directions, we
have a clear conclusion, which i'll summarise here:
1. the NOTICE file (or NOTICE.txt) gets created if it doesn't
already exist, and this gets added to it:
Portions of Apache Derby are © Copyr
The bad path lesson, today's news for another O/S:
http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=04/09/17/2234245
http://news.com.com/Open-source+spat+triggers+legal+threat/2100-7344_3-5372087.html?tag=nefd.top
.V
ps/ot:
http://jroller.com/page/erAck/20040915#sun_ms_covenant_and_openoffice
--
Please po
On 17 Sep 2004, at 04:59, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
The problem with such a scheme is that, to be fair, we would have
to go back through the archives of each project, determine the
actual copyright holders, and ask if they want to be named by
a copyright notice. Some will, some won't, and this will i
On Sep 16, 2004, at 7:59 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
Collective work Copyright 2004 The Apache Software Foundation.
[AL 2.0 Template]
Derivative work Copyright 2004 Some Other Contributor.
Licensed to the ASF under a contributor agreement.
Copyright 2004 Contributor Company,
Collective work Copyright 2004 The Apache Software Foundation.
[AL 2.0 Template]
Derivative work Copyright 2004 Some Other Contributor.
Licensed to the ASF under a contributor agreement.
Copyright 2004 Contributor Company, Inc.
Licensed to the ASF under a contributor a
On Sep 15, 2004, at 4:33 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
That is correct. 2 main issues with any codebase
that the ASF develops is that (1) it be under the
Apache License and (2) that the Copyright be assigned
to the ASF.
So it must be licensed "by" the ASF (via the AL) and
"owned" by the ASF.
That is n
Jim Barnett wrote:
Also, having owners assign copyrights to ASF would probably be a
mistake. First, ASF really doesn't have the resources or (I would
guess) the interest in enforcing copyrights assigned to it when a
third party uses the contributed work outside the scope of the Apache
licens
Vic Cekvenich wrote:
Jim Barnett wrote:
Also, having owners assign copyrights to ASF would probably be a
mistake. First, ASF really doesn't have the resources or (I would
guess) the interest in enforcing copyrights assigned to it when a
third party uses the contributed work outside the scope
Jim Barnett wrote:
Also, having owners assign copyrights to ASF would probably be a mistake. First, ASF really doesn't have the resources or (I would guess) the interest in enforcing copyrights assigned to it when a third party uses the contributed work outside the scope of the Apache license. Se
Brian Behlendorf wrote:
The original copyright notice shouldn't be thrown
away of course, but perhaps moved to another part of the package to
denote its historic origin?
Brian
I agree Brian ;-)
This would be wrong:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=geronimo-dev&m=106875482022176&w=2
.V
--
Ple
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
The alternative being that we start asking for copyright assignments.
I assume that was the case?
.V
ps/ot:
http://jroller.com/page/erAck/20040915#sun_ms_covenant_and_openoffice
BTW, I don't claim that my workaround of having the copyright owner
change the copyright notice
On Sep 15, 2004, at 3:59 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Sep 15, 2004, at 2:55 PM, Jennifer B Machovec wrote:
I think the short-term (and maybe even long-term) resolution to the
copyright notice issue may be having the ASF copyright notice in each
main
file clearly apply to the whole project. This
e consultation. Thank you for allowing me to offer my $0.02.
Regards,
James Barnett
Senior Counsel
BEA Systems, Inc.
408-570-8442
-Original Message-
From: Roy T. Fielding [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 3:59 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROT
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
That is correct. 2 main issues with any codebase
that the ASF develops is that (1) it be under the
Apache License and (2) that the Copyright be assigned
to the ASF.
So it must be licensed "by" the ASF (via the AL) and
"owned" by the ASF.
That is not corre
On Sep 15, 2004, at 2:55 PM, Jennifer B Machovec wrote:
I think the short-term (and maybe even long-term) resolution to the
copyright notice issue may be having the ASF copyright notice in each
main
file clearly apply to the whole project. This could read, for example:
"Apache Derby is (c) Copyri
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> how about someone writes a shell script that does the
> change and get someone at IBM to execute it?
As I understand it, it doesn't matter how they make the change, so long as
they are the ones who commit it.
--- Noel
-
I think the short-term (and maybe even long-term) resolution to the
copyright notice issue may be having the ASF copyright notice in each main
file clearly apply to the whole project. This could read, for example:
"Apache Derby is (c) Copyright The Apache Software Foundation 2004. All
rights
Just an idea but, how about someone writes a shell script that does the
change and get someone at IBM to execute it?
-dain
On Sep 15, 2004, at 2:19 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
We've just finished a conference with Jennifer. As I understand it,
her
issues are not with the practice but with how to
We've just finished a conference with Jennifer. As I understand it, her
issues are not with the practice but with how to implement that practice
properly. As I understand Roy's comment, the practice is correct, but the
legal magic is that IBM needs to be the party that does it.
--- Noel
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>
> That is not correct: CLAs and software grants are licenses,
> not assignments. Larry Lessig says that the code should retain
> each contributor's copyright. Apache has traditionally used the
> Apache copyright alone to make it clear
That is correct. 2 main issues with any codebase
that the ASF develops is that (1) it be under the
Apache License and (2) that the Copyright be assigned
to the ASF.
So it must be licensed "by" the ASF (via the AL) and
"owned" by the ASF.
That is not correct: CLAs and software grants are licenses,
n
On Sep 15, 2004, at 2:50 PM, Cliff Schmidt wrote:
IIUC, it is the ASF's policy that all copyright notices,
particularly in a distribution should read "Copyright The
Apache Software Foundation."
That is correct. 2 main issues with any codebase
that the ASF develops is that (1) it be under the
Noel J. Bergman wrote on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 12:09 AM:
> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>> I've been lurking on the Derby list, and there's a discussion
>> about code copyright. Why isn't all the code (c) ASF?
>
> The files should all have the AL v2. The license file provided
> includes
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> I've been lurking on the Derby list, and there's a discussion
> about code copyright. Why isn't all the code (c) ASF?
The files should all have the AL v2. The license file provided includes the
copyright. Any other notices, such as historical credits, go into the
NO
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> I've been lurking on the Derby list, and there's a discussion
> about code copyright. Why isn't all the code (c) ASF?
The files should all have the AL v2. The license file provided includes the
copyright. Any other notices, such as historical credits, go into the
NO
35 matches
Mail list logo
