On Sep 26, 2004, at 6:20 PM, Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
On Sep 26, 2004, at 11:37 AM, Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
Traditionally, the only time we distribute code under someone else's
copyright is when we are including other works as a convenience for our
users, such as packaging something in a distribution. Otherwise, we
tend not to host projects owned by other entities. Sourceforge is good
for that.
Incorrect.
Not "Incorrect". Show me software in the ASF that is not (c) ASF,
besides standard APIs or such. We may have attributed (c) ASF by
mistake, or incorrectly, but it is all (c) ASF except for inclusions of
outside works for packaging convenience.
Geir, I think we must be misunderstanding each other.
All code distributed by ASF may only have (C) ASF notices but that does not change the fact that the code does have additional copyright holders. I thought you were claiming that ASF only distributed code where the only copyright holder was ASF.
You can't really have additional copyright holders, if I understand copyright law correctly. You can have licensees. I'll be the first to admit that I had this wrong before this came up. I thought that the ASF had free and clear copyright ownership, and the contributor did too. Thus, the ASF was free to manage the code in the way that we saw fit - for example, we could change the license under which that code was distributed - the license for anything and everything in the distro. I don't believe we can do that with derby if it's (c) IBM unless we get another agreement from IBM allowing us to do that. I don't want to go down that road because of the administrative burden that would place on the ASF.
I'm just baffled why this is such a problem - why can't IBM just assign copyright?
Derby wants to follow existing ASF practices, I'm now no longer have any
idea what folks are objecting to. NOTICES file seems to be the new
issue, but again Derby wants to follow existing ASF practice, as seen in
the Xerces Java notice file and the Beehive notice file.
I guess the question I have, looking at Xerces, and I as a non-lawyer read it this way
"Xerces is (c) ASF in its entirety, and we're giving credit to IBM and Sun for contributions to this work that were *originally* (c) IBM or (c) SUNW"
The implication to this non-lawyer was *originally* (c) IBM but isn't now - it's wholly (c) ASF. So if I have a problem, I talk to ASF. I don't need to rope in Sun and IBM.
I think that it serves everyones interest to keep things clear and simple. One of the things we strive to do at the ASF is provide software with clear IP provenance that doesn't require our users to deal with any other organization for any issues surrounding the distributed work.
I think everyone involved in this issue feels that is a worthy objective of the ASF, so I just don't grok the pushback we're getting on this.
geir
-- Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
