Just ONE more follow up. (I am noisy, I know. Hehe.) 1C is out completely out of the question because copyright works in exactly the opposite way. If I do not explicitly add a license to a work, then full copyright applies. Which means we cannot use it in an ASF project.
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 8:42 PM, Chip Childers <chip.child...@sungard.com>wrote: > Hi all, > > (Looking for mentor guidance here as well please!) > > On this topic, we need to come together as a community to figure out > how we want to proceed with these configuration files. It doesn't > seem like we are going to get a definitive answer on legal-discuss@a.o > without asking about a specific file from a specific source. There > HAS been a little discussion about the ability of a configuration file > to be copyright on the legal list, but it didn't go much further than > a couple of emails. > > As far as I can tell, we have some options: > > 1 - Do a file by file audit to confirm the source and if there is any > claim of copyright on those files, and then either: > 1.A - Ask the source project if they would consider granting a > different license for just that config file. > 1.B - Ask legal-discuss@a.o for specific exemptions > 1.C - Do nothing, because the file isn't something that a copyright is > claimed on (and we wouldn't claim a copyright either) > 1.D - Spec out the requirements, and have someone attempt a clean-room > implementation (I think that I could find someone if it gets to this) > 2 - Follow up on the concept of configuration files not being > protected by copyright, and ask for a ruling from legal-discuss on > that idea. > > There may be other options that I'm missing. I'm looking for opinions > and suggestions for how to move forward, since this is absolutely one > of the blocker issues for a 4.0 release. Thoughts? > > -chip > > On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Chip Childers <chip.child...@sungard.com> > wrote: > > Chiradeep, > > > > Would you mind putting together the specific example data being > > requested by Daniel [1] on legal-discuss@a.o in response to the legal > > Jira that you raised [2]? > > > > The legal thread includes some discussion on the possibility of config > > files even being something that could enjoy license protection, but we > > should probably plan on dealing with the potential provenance issues > > anyway. > > > > -chip > > > > [1] - http://markmail.org/message/p6kxbvzybyu552p2 > > [2] - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-146 > -- NS
