You are going to make up copyright law by having an "or" in the copyright
statement and somehow think that makes things better?
The release has the ASF header for this file. I believe Adobe owns this code.
I believe have the right to donate this code on behalf of Adobe. The release
is therefore correct. Does anybody else disagree? I don't think your changes
of adding an "or" are conformant to copyright law anywhere.
Thanks,
-Alex
On 4/20/18, 12:00 AM, "Justin Mclean" <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
Hi,
> IMO, we'd be better off having these files donated to Apache so the header
> does not need to change. There is no need to keep it as third-party since
> the original author hasn't touched it in years. I'm pretty sure it is ok
> for me to just say it is owned by Adobe and thus donated. We've done
> this in the past without a whole SGA. It is just a couple of files.
I’ve changed the headers IMO it better to comply with ASF legal policy than
not to. If you want retroactively get them donated I believe you would need to
confirm that Adobe does own the copyright and check on legal discuss if that’s
OK. I’ll change the headers back to ASF ones for you if they need to be.
I put the copyright as "Copyright 2011 Piotr Walczyszyn or Adobe” as
although he was working for Adobe at the time this was his personal blog and I
don’t know the what the terms of his contact with Adobe was or how
employee/employer copyright ownership works under Polish copyright law. (He was
based in Poland according to his blog.)
Re "There is no need to keep it as third-party since the original author
hasn't touched it in years.” I think you find that copyright lasts a little
longer than that :-) I’ve no idea what it is in Poland but here (and the US)
it’s life of the author + 70 years.
Thanks,
Justin
