Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: > see the bottom of http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt > note that the 'fill in the copyright owner' aspect is directed to > non-apache groups that are using the licence to protect *their* code, > not to apache's own code.
and Noel J. Bergman wrote: > As Ken explained in > http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]& > msgNo=362, the copyright holder would be The Apache Software Foundation, > having received a copyright grant from IBM. The purpose for having the > copyright holder pluggable is to allow other entities to re-use the Apache > License. That is not clear from the referred pages. In this case there is a "copyright" owner" (IBM) to the code and a copyright licensor (ASF) who give out a "copyright licence". In this case, according to Jennifer the "copyright owner" is still IBM, and she doesn't want the IBM copyright notices to be removed or replaced since that could imply Apache copyright ownership. She also states that ASF copyright notices can be *added* to intellectual property created (i.e. modified code) or owned by ASF. Adding an embedded copy of the ASF v2.0 licence is OK according to her. - - - Whether the copyright notices can be removed/replaced or not I cannot find any support for directly in the apache documentation. But IANAL and this is an issue for ASF lawyers to look into. For now, my proposal, as originally stated takes all these things into account, and by also adding attributation in the NOTICES file it is also prepared for the eventual removal, when that has been cleared with IP lawyers for and by ASF. So as far as I'm concerned there is enough information to proceed with the bulk of the work, and personally I see no limitations on the usage of the code under the Apache Licence. /Jonas
