Hi,
> My understanding is that the LICENSE is supposed to include pointers to
> non-ASF code, even if that code is under AL.
I don’t believe that’s the currently policy but as I said it’s not a major
issue if AL software is included in LICENSE. They are not required but no harm
done.
> For sure, I agree with the basic principles you state. I believe the
> authors of events.js do not have copyright to the lines in these files.
> If you look at the content of events.as and compare it to events.js,
> events.as is so heavily modified by apache committers such that I don’t
> think the authors of events.js can truly lay claim to any significant
> portion of it.
INAL but AFAIW modification even if it extensive usually doesn’t remove the
original copyright.
For example [1], although it might be different under US law.
"There are no provisions or exceptions in the Copyright Act that cover adapting
or modifying material”
It even goes on to say:
"For computer programs - which are considered literary works - an adaptation is
a version of the work that is not a reproduction. The adaptation may or may not
be in the same language, code or notation the work was originally expressed in."
The Apache license also explicitly deals with this, here’s the relevant bits:
4. Redistribution.
• You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices stating
that You changed the files;
• You must retain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works that You
distribute, all copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices from the
Source form of the Work, excluding those notices that do not pertain to any
part of the Derivative Works;
However the fact that the GCL is permissively licensed means that’s it’s OK we
can modify it as long we keep the original copyright intact.
Options I see are:
1.Leave the original Google copyright header on it, and as it Apache Licensed
there no need to mention these files in LICENSE.
2.Repalce with an ASF Apache license header and note this has been done in
NOTICE. Strictly we probably need permission from Google to do this, so 1 may
be the simpler option.
Both of these options are documented here [2] and either would be simple to do,
1 easier than 2 and wouldn’t import any further restriction by adding to NOTICE.
> I will note that the externs file for JQuery is also copyright
> Google Closure Authors
That's fine as far as we’re concerned as we’ve not changed the copyright owner.
It may or may not be fine from JQuery’s point of view but they would need to
take it up with Google not us.
Thanks,
Justin
1. http://www.unimelb.edu.au/copyright/information/fastfind/adapting.html
2. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html
