On Sunday 08 April 2007 00:37, Rick Litton wrote: > Niclas Hedhman wrote: > > Are we talking taking OPS4J/ALv2 code into some derivative work?? Then; > > The Copyright notice remains. If the derived work is the same license, > > then > > add extra line(s) for "Copyright xxx, 2007". > > This is the first scenario. So if we decide to modify existing OPS4J/ALv2 > code then we may have to add this extra line with author's name.
Yes. > > For other licensed OSS, you will probably need additional source headers. > > For > > closed source, the original copyright notice is to remain, see license > > text. > > Yes, for example the Eclipse common public license (similar to the Apache > license) states that Eclipse owns the copyright and they have a process in > place to help ensure the originality of the code (not sure what this is). > So there is some "buffer" between potential claimant and the author of the > code. Besides, Eclipse has a full time legal staff... ;) EPL is Ok with me. Can't recall off my head the main differences from ALv2, but the viral clauses of CPL are gone, which _I_ think is good. The Eclipse Foundation being a legal buffer is actually a non-reality and will probably not hold up in court. AFAIK, Eclipse Foundation also (like ASF, unlike FSF) doesn't work with Copyright Assignment, so end of the day it is the individuals responsibility. Now, the biggest legal protection provided by Eclipse Foundation is provided to the companies that employs the committers. There is no financial benefit going after Niclas Hedhman, since there is not much to collect in "damages", but for IBM, Borland and Oracle it is a different story... I think IBM wanted a structure equivalent of; "If a truck driver runs over a person on purpose, the truck company is not responsible." Cheers Niclas _______________________________________________ general mailing list general@lists.ops4j.org http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general
