I think I can get started by doing the following:
- Adding the license text to the source files where they are missing
- Changing the license verbiage to meet the new requirements but *not*
removing the copyright notice.
In a second phase, if when this final issue gets clarified, I can do
another pass removing the copyright notice from the source files. Dan
is already moving the IBM copyright from COPYRIGHTS to NOTICE.
Sound good?
David
Rick Hillegas wrote:
Jean T. Anderson wrote:
Jean T. Anderson wrote:
Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
Rick Hillegas wrote:
3) Are there other unclear issues?
...
This point from DERBY-1377 is falling into the cracks:
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-1377#action_12422783 says
this:
Copyright 1997, 2004 The Apache Software Foundation or its
licensors, as applicable.
Removing these might require the permission of the actual copyright
holders, which might be a pain to track down as to who has copyright
on each file (allowing multiple holders per file). The new ASF
policy does allow copyright notices to be left in the header (but
would prefer not to).
Is there a resolution for this?
Dan, you expressed concern about handling of the "Copyright 1997, 2004
The Apache Software Foundation or its licensors, as applicable." line.
How do you think that should be handled?
thanks,
-jean
I'm afraid I don't understand the issue here. Is it one of the following:
A) We don't know who the "licensors" are and are wondering if we have to
identify the licensors and ask their permission?
B) The verbiage above implies a copyright claim by the individual
contributor (or the company which hired the contributor) and we are
wondering if we have to identify these contributors/companies and ask
their permission?
C) Something else?
Thanks,
-Rick
