On 2/8/07, James Margaris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
After spending about 3 hours today merging conflicts based on changed copyrights, isn't "Copyright Apache blah blah blah" no longer the right header? According to some docs after November 06 the headers are supposed to have been changed as the source files are actually not copyright apache, they are copyright the original contributor and used by Apache under a license grant.
You are right that the document I have linked you to does say that the copyright statement doesn't go at the top of each source file. However, I was referring to the statement in the NOTICE file, which that same document also says should include the ASF copyright notice. Let me know if some part of it is not clear, and I'll fix it.
What actually *is* under apache copyright rather than simply granted via license?
The collective work of all contributions as released based on the determination of the PMC is done on behalf of the ASF. Every individual author retains copyright ownership in their contribution, but the ASF owns the copyright in the collective work created by a release (or really any other PMC decision that affects the selection, coordination, and arrangement of the individual contributions).
The Rhino jar we use is actually a modified version patched by the Dojo guys. The patch file in in the Dojo repository.
OK, but I assume you understand that doesn't reduce our requirement to make sure the conditions of the MPL (particularly 3.1-3.6) have been met before we can distribute Rhino (see first sentence of MPL 3.6).
AFAIK, nobody has edited any copyright notices to change them in any way.
That's good. Cliff
________________________________ From: Cliff Schmidt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wed 2/7/2007 6:42 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [VOTE] XAP 0.3.0 Release Candidate Vote On 2/7/07, Bob Buffone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Xapians, > > I have posted a release candidate at: > http://people.apache.org/~bbuffone/xap-release/ > > This release takes into account the feedback from the Cliff (NOTICE.txt, > and licensing headers) and Robert's feedback on the Xap zip file name. > > Again thanks for the feedback and the work on getting the release to > this point. I hope this is last cut, so we can get back to coding. I took another good look through it. The LICENSE file looks good, but then I got concerned when I noticed that it appears to only include the license for the Google and Dojo stuff, but not the other things that are mentioned in the NOTICE file, e.g. Rhino, Jython. If something like Rhino is part of the release, it needs to have its license included in the LICENSE file. Speaking of Rhino, I found the custom jars, but couldn't see the license anywhere in that folder either. The license should ideally be near the associated third-party work, in addition to being copied or referenced/linked in the top-level LICENSE file. AFAICT, it's in neither place, which would be . After seeing this, I didn't track down the others listed in NOTICE that do not appear to be in LICENSE, but you'd want to check them too. Also, I was looking for the complete Rhino source and couldn't find that. I saw the README.txt that states, "The source code for Rhino is available at: http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Download_Mozilla_Source_Code";, but it wasn't obvious from there where to find the Rhino source for the version used in XAP. If you don't include the source, you must have a link to exactly where the source is (this is an MPL requirement). BTW, I have no idea why Google and Dojo get this wrong, but there's no comma after the year or year range in a copyright notice. There's also no need for "Copyright" followed by "(c)" -- just one or the other. I definitely wouldn't fix any third-party copyright notices; just copy it from what they used, as you did; however, the Apache one should be written properly, as described in the link I gave you ("Copyright [yyyy] The Apache Software Foundation"). I wouldn't have bothered stopping a release vote if this was the only problem, but if you're fixing the other things, you might want to make sure the Apache one is clean. You can also see the actual Copyright Act's requirement here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000401----000-.html#b. BTW, did Mozilla, Jython, and Python all make the same mistake? I didn't check all of them, but I just want to make sure there was no editing done of their copyright notices. Cliff
