On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Anne Kathrine Petterøe <yoji...@gmail.com> wrote: > PPMC and IPMC, please re-vote on the following regarding copyright issue > ESME-47.
<snip> > 2. The Apache License block will be followed by a legacy comment (Only in > files where the WorldWide Conferencing notice currently exists, except any > files where user dpp has not made any contribution): > /* * Portions Copyright 2009 WorldWide Conferencing, LLC */ <ipmc-hat><legal-hat><ianal> if this language has not been cleared with our lawyers on legal-private then : * i'm -1 on this phrasing * please raise a legal JIRA for appropriate language </ianal></legal-hat></ipmc-hat> the reason for this veto is that i believe that this phrasing is 1. potentially untrue for example, if at some future time someone decides to revert all the relevant commits - or in time the code is so extensively revised then no portions of the code will be subject to that copyright and the statement will be untrue. 2. potentially dangerous for example it could be read as a claim rather than a statement AIUI (please jump in if i'm wrong) some source files was derived from originals that contained the notice "Copyright 2009 WorldWide Conferencing, LLC". something along the lines below seems to me more truthful: /* * This document was derived from an original containing the following copyright notice: * * Copyright 2009 WorldWide Conferencing, LLC * */ but IMO this is a job for a lawyer - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
