Home
Reading
Searching
Subscribe
Sponsors
Statistics
Posting
Contact
Spam
Lists
Links
About
Hosting
Filtering
Features Download
Marketing
Archives
FAQ
Blog
 
Gmane
From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding <at> gbiv.com>
Subject: Re: MPLv2 on AL2 header review ...
Newsgroups: gmane.comp.apache.legal.discuss
Date: Friday 25th May 2012 18:45:25 UTC (over 5 years ago)
On May 23, 2012, at 3:05 AM, Michael Meeks wrote:

> Hi guys,
> 
>        We are doing the ground-work for file-by-file, incremental
> re-basing of our work on top of the same code release by Oracle under
> the Apache License 2.0. Since the overwhelming majority of files in
> the Apache OpenOffice incubator repository are un-touched since
> checkin (aside from new license headers and some permission fixes) this
> should initially be reasonably uncomplicated. As noted ad-nasusem
> elsewhere, we plan to do this under the MPLv2 license - more details
> here:

I assume you mean they are unchanged since they were formerly
licensed by Sun/Oracle as LGPLv3.

>        http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Relicensing
> 
>        As such, we need a new header for source code that makes the
> situation clear. We want to get this right, I append the existing
> suggestion labelled to aid the discussion, with the hope that it will
> conclude in linear time :-)
> 
>        Our intention would be to include the relevant NOTICE file,
> MPLv2 and Apache licenses into our existing source repository and
> documentation distributed with the product.
> 
>        My hope is that the MPLv2 header 'M' and lines 'G' meet the
> requirement of a prominent notice that the file is modified.
> 
>        Those with keen eyesight will notice the removal of the
> substantial disclaimer which appears permissible under the AL2 section
> 4.3. We are eager to have a short, MPLv2-like license header to
> improve readability. Both the linked licenses contain this sort of
> comprehensive "if it breaks you get two pieces !" language in their
> text.
> 
>        Thanks in advance for your input; maintaining the CC is much
> appreciated by those not subscribed to the list :-)
> 
> 	Regards,
> 
>                 Michael.
> 
>   [ apologies for the re-send, was blocked by moderation it seems =]
> 
> /*
> C Copyright 2012 LibreOffice contributors.

Who/What is "LibreOffice contributors" and what copyrightable expression
did they create in 2012?

Assuming you just made that up, please understand that it is illegal
under US copyright law (Sec 506(c)) to claim copyright for something
on which you do not actually own copyright.  That is why the ASF
stopped adding ASF copyrights to individual files years ago -- we
usually don't own the copyright to individual files, only to the
collective work, and instead hold non-exclusive licenses from the
copyright owners.

> M This Source Code Form is subject to the terms of the Mozilla Public
> M License, v. 2.0. If a copy of the MPL was not distributed with this
> M file, You can obtain one at http://mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/.

I am not aware of the copyright owners ever licensing the code as
MPL2.  It's a fine license, but you can't just decide that for them.
You would need their permission to do so, just like we needed
permission to change it to the Apache License.

If you want to add a comment at the beginning of every file that
just directs people to your project, you can do that without changing
the licensing.  However, I doubt that would be useful.  Just create
your own README and user documentation -- people don't look to the
code for information on how to contribute.

I suggest you just leave each file's headers as they are until
changes are made that you don't want to submit to the ASF (that's
fine, we only accept voluntary contributions).  If you make bug
fixes, please do submit them to the ASF -- they usually aren't
separately copyrightable anyway.

When you do make a change to a file, you can either add a comment
around or near the changed part to say that you changed it (and
apply whatever license you want specifically to those changes) or
you can change the header in a factual way that includes a pointer
to the license and the NOTICE file.  For example,

"Portions of this file are licensed by the Apache Software Foundation
under the Apache License 2.0 (http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0).
See the NOTICE file distributed with this work for additional information
regarding copyright ownership."


Cheers,

....Roy T. Fielding, Director, The Apache Software Foundation
    ([email protected])  <http://www.apache.org/>
    ([email protected])    <http://roy.gbiv.com/>
 
CD: 18ms