Robert, We have already had a lengthy discussion on legal-discuss: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201001.mbox/thread Look for the "Committer refuses to remove copyright notices in source (ESME-47), how best to solve? " thread.
I am not sure if this is the same list as the legal-private list you mention? The text in this vote is a suggestion from William Rowe: http://markmail.org/message/q6yweleer2voqvd3 (which no one on the legal-list objected to) /Anne On 19 Jan, 2010, at 17:51 , Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: > 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
