On Monday, May 20, 2002, at 10:24 AM, Berin Loritsch wrote:
>> My point: authors aren't placing "copyright by Apache..." text within >> their contribution source files. The Cocoon web site, by default, >> currently adds this copyright tag via transformation. Thus, we should >> make it very clear to authors (by pointing them to a revised >> contrib.xml, etc.) *before* they contribute. I'll go ahead and update >> instructions, templates, and contrib.xml, etc. as appropriate. > > That can be a problem for items submitted via a patch, or from > non-committers Not necessarily, unless the patch is a new/separate component/document. The right of revision (among other rights) is retained by the copyright owner, in this case, Apache, unless specified otherwise. Still, good point. We need to make this clear in the instructions. >> Seems to me if authors want to retain copyright to their works, they >> should publish them elsewhere. We can still provide links to such >> off-site works from the Cocoon web site. > > > Absolutely. We should assume that if the documentation was submitted > for inclusion in CVS, that those documents are donated to the ASF. We > do need a disclosure page (as you noted) that specifically says that. > Therefore, no author can retain their right to extract royalties from > their documentation if it is available freely on the Cocoon web site. Then, in effect, the copyright terms for docs will be stricter than the revised copyright terms proposed for code, as per Stefano's email, which stated "GPL code can use Apache code". In other words, why wouldn't we want a potential GPL project to "use" (revise, distribute) Apache docs, as long as the project makes such modifications available? Why should docs be treated differently than code under Stefano's new proposal? Diana --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
