I'll add my own chimes to this discussion. > On Jun 10, 2018, at 2:57 AM, Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote: > ... > I think I agree with Matteo that those protobuf files should not have an ASF > header. Generally changes to a file are under the original license, see [1], > but it not a big issue as BSD is an Category A license and you are including > the full license text. It’s also seems odd because the license calls them out > as BSD licensed.
Yes, these files are not being relicensed. Files that are covered by an ICLA by the original author, or covered by a software grant can be relicensed. In that case, removing the BSD license header and replacing it by the Apache license header is appropriate. In this case of a BSD-licensed file that has minor changes, the Apache license header is inappropriate. The only part of the file that is Apache-licensed is the changes made here. So the Apache license header that states that this file is "Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation ... under one or more contributor license agreements" is not correct. The comment line "This file is derived from Google ProcolBuffer CodedInputStream class" is sufficient documentation, without the Apache license header. Regards, Craig > > Thanks, > Justin > > 1. https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#3party > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > Craig L Russell Secretary, Apache Software Foundation c...@apache.org http://db.apache.org/jdo --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
