On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 10:15 PM Henri Yandell <bay...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 6:38 PM, John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 9:30 PM John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 9:27 PM Henri Yandell <bay...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > > >> Reverted to "Copyright Contributors"? > > >> > > >> > > > Yes, for any file that we don't have full agreement (ICLA on file) we > > > can't remove the copyright claim that already exists. Us receiving an > > ICLA > > > is what allows us to say "Licensed to the ASF" (it's in the ICLA). > > > > > > It's not a big deal, since its Apache licensed, we just have to be > > careful > > > we're removing someone's pre-existing claim. > > > > > > > I'll give a more concrete example. > > > > Let's say I imported this file into an ASF repo > > https://github.com/spring-projects/spring-framework/ > > blob/v5.0.0.RC3/spring-core/src/main/java/org/springframework/util/ > > StringUtils.java > > > > I wouldn't change the header to say licensed to the ASF. None of the > > contributors have signed ICLAs. The file header would remain in tact. I > > would also have to carry their notice file around > > https://github.com/spring-projects/spring-framework/ > > blob/v5.0.0.RC3/src/docs/dist/notice.txt > > (at > > least I'm assuming this is their NOTICE file, I can't find any others > > around) > > > > > For a concrete example with copyright Pivotal; sure - nice and easy. > > In this case we have 'Copyright Contributors'. It's an empty phrase that > would just cause confusion. Because Contributor isn't defined, it looks > like a repeat of our source header: > > "Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more > contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file distributed with this > work for additional information regarding copyright ownership. ... " > > Perhaps the solution is to, in the NOTICE, state: > > Copyright 2015-2016 by Contributors > Copyright 2017 The Apache Software Foundation > > Where we could change 'by Contributors' to be more descriptive, but I seem > to recall lots of pushback at changing 3rd party source headers to make > them more understandable. > I think that's a reasonable approach, to list out contributors in question. > > --- > > Note also that clause 5 of Apache 2.0 means that many of those 'contributor > license agreements' are Apache 2.0 Licenses and not SGA/ICLA/CCLA. Its > language should also cover something else published under Apache 2.0; ie) > no need for a different Apache source header. > > Just to be clear. The issue in this case (not to confuse this situation with MADlib's) isn't what license applies but what copyrights apply. MXnet is actually much easier, since we imported full commit history. We can always go back and check who committer what change and what copyright applies. The legal ruling [1] is that we don't add the Apache source header to 3rd party code, which is effectively what this is. I'll also point out that the legal advice is clear that this is only for code developed at the ASF, which the existing MXnet code is not. [1]: https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html > Hen >
