Thanks for the quick reply David (I'm moving it to the dev@ list). > Only a person from Cisco would be authorized to do this generally > speaking. If the contribution includes software from Cisco, then it > needs to stay (and probably be annotated in NOTICE). If the > contribution is from the author at Cisco, we should point them to the > Source Header policy. Does that distinction make sense? (and I note > you have)
Yes, that distinction makes sense, as the author of the last pull request is a Cisco employee (as per his comments), so I think it is correct to request to remove the copyright notice from the header files. > So a CCLA isn't required (unless the employer requires it) ICLA isn't > technically required either unless you are a committer. Submitting a > patch to the project triggers section 5 of the ASLv2 giving us that > contribution under the same license. > That said, we shouldn't be accepting contributions that don't comply > with [4] unless that contribution includes 3rd-party work, in which > case we ought not change the source. That doesn't look it's the case > here. I think we all agree it is not a third party contribution. I suggested to submit it just to make sure everyone had the terms and conditions clear. Thanks for pointing to the section 5 of the license. > Also; note that the source header is not a statement of > copyright. It's explicitly not a statement of copyright, because the > ASF doesn't hold the copyright individuals or companies do.. Some > folks want (demand?) an attribution; you could conceivably put this in > NOTICE; and I've seen other projects do that. > Take a look at https: > http://www.apache.org/licenses/example-NOTICE.txt Regarding the NOTICE file, I searched the "legal-discuss" mailing list archive, and although there is the example notice giving attribution, the threads I found there discouraged including this kind of copyrights (otherwise most ASF commiters whould be filling the NOTICE files with attributions to their employers that are already covered by the CLAs, and NOTICE files are meant to be small and not to provide redundant information). So, if I understand properly, as any other contribution under the terms of the CLA, there is no need to include the attribution note in the NOTICE file unless the contributor's employer explicitly requests it? Thanks, Ignasi On 5 June 2014 16:19, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote: > I don't see a huge reason for this to be private - consider moving this to > dev@ > > On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Ignasi Barrera <n...@apache.org> wrote: >> Hi there! >> >> There is an ongoing discussion on a pull request, regarding authorship >> and licensing. >> >> It is in the pull request to add vSphere support [1] (look at the last >> comments). The pull request is based on an old one from Andrea Turli >> [2], and from what I've seen, it is pretty much a copy of the existing >> code, but without properly crediting Andrea for that. >> >> Following the comments, the pull request has been closed and opened >> again in the labs repo [3], where the discussion is being continued. I >> am trying to avoid generating a flame from the original pull request, >> so: >> >> * I've politely asked to stop the discussion in the original pull >> request and focus in the one in labs. >> >> * Regarding attribution, to be polite and democratic, I've asked to >> remove the "@author" tags (the pull request which copies Andrea's >> original code has changed some of those tags in the javadoc). To avoid >> conflicts here, I'd asked to remove them, according to the policy >> that's being followed in many other ASF projects. >> >> And here are the points where I have some doubts: >> >> * There was a Cisco copyright in the header files, which I've asked to >> be removed, as per the ASF header policy [4]. >> > > Only a person from Cisco would be authorized to do this generally > speaking. If the contribution includes software from Cisco, then it > needs to stay (and probably be annotated in NOTICE). If the > contribution is from the author at Cisco, we should point them to the > Source Header policy. Does that distinction make sense? (and I note > you have) > > >> * The contributor asked where the copyright should be placed, but as I >> understand the Apache CLAs and NOTICE files, I think it should not be >> included, as any contribution (as far as I understand) is done under >> the CLA terms and the copyright and patents are granted to the ASF. >> According to my understanding of this, I've encouraged the contributor >> to have a CCLA in place, to make sure the employer is aware of the >> terms and conditions (see comment here [6]). >> > > So a CCLA isn't required (unless the employer requires it) ICLA isn't > technically required either unless you are a committer. Submitting a > patch to the project triggers section 5 of the ASLv2 giving us that > contribution under the same license. > That said, we shouldn't be accepting contributions that don't comply > with [4] unless that contribution includes 3rd-party work, in which > case we ought not change the source. That doesn't look it's the case > here. Also; note that the source header is not a statement of > copyright. It's explicitly not a statement of copyright, because the > ASF doesn't hold the copyright individuals or companies do.. Some > folks want (demand?) an attribution; you could conceivably put this in > NOTICE; and I've seen other projects do that. > Take a look at https: > http://www.apache.org/licenses/example-NOTICE.txt > > --David > > > > >> >> Could you someone please, correct me if I am misunderstanding >> something? I really don't want to start a flame on this on GitHub, but >> I think it is important to give proper authorship attribution to >> Andrea, and to properly address the licensing thing. >> >> Any input (if you think I'm wrong or I'm right) is valuable! >> >> >> Ignasi >> >> >> >> [1] https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/364 >> [2] https://github.com/jclouds/legacy-jclouds/pull/910 >> [3] https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/61 >> [4] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html >> [5] http://www.apache.org/licenses/#clas >> [6] https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/61#issuecomment-45220918
