3 comments inline. I really think we need to check on legal discuss how to handle this. I'd suggest figuring out what to ask on this list first.
-- what are the IP concerns we are trying to resolve? (are we waiting for Newcastle University to tell us something?) -- show a typical current header for example from the link -- show a proposed NOTICE file. -- ask who can make the code change (e.g. a Newcastle University employee?) david jencks On Jan 19, 2012, at 8:44 AM, Paul Lindner wrote: > I'm a little confused here. > > For the initial code drop you should have a signed CLA from the original > company that assigns copyright to ASF. Is that not the case? That's not the case. The copyright for code remains with the author or original owner. Apache has copyright over the aggregated work. The CLA says that the person signing the CLA has the right to license the work to apache. > Is there > code that was imported improperly? > > NOTICE file is for giving notice that the software contains licensed > software from elsewhere. Well, it's for required legal notices such as the apache one "this product contains software developed at the ASF". Apache strongly discourages contributions from requiring more such notices, but sometimes it happens, for instance with the geronimo admin console notice I quoted. > In this case you can use the specified code > intact. Just add RAT rules to skip that. For example in Apache Shindig we > had a copy of phpunit and Zend in our source tree that had compatible > licenses, we put the appropriate NOTICE and rat rules in place. > > Please do consult with legal-discuss to figure out the right way to move > forward with this. > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 8:00 AM, Simone Tripodi > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Hi David!!! >> >> sure, just have a look, for example, at the MD5Generator[1] class, or >> any of the java class conatined in aouth2-* - RAT (in the release >> profiles) complains about non-conformity. I think RAT would not complain if the Newcastle copyright statement was in a separate comment after the apache license header. However we presumably expect these files to eventually be changed, and Newcastle won't necessarily have copyright on the changes, so if a copyright statement is required by Newcastle having it in the NOTICE would be much better. >> >> +1 to move Copyright statements in the NOTICE, sounds more than reasonable. >> >> Thanks for your help, have a nice day! >> -Simo >> >> [1] http://s.apache.org/HP7 >> >> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ >> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/ >> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi >> http://www.99soft.org/ >> > > > > -- > Paul Lindner -- [email protected] -- profiles.google.com/pmlindner
