On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 02:29:18PM +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
To clarify, the question is: can we remove the copyright lines from the file headers and move them to a NOTICE file without the formal approval of the entity mentioned in the copyright line (i.e. as long as they don't object by $DATE, we consider that they consent).
So it's not exactly removing the notices, and we would not do it if the affected entity formally objected to it. The reason I'm asking is that it seems to be the only practical way to operate, since some entities already declared that they agree with it only if *all* copyright notices are moved.
Oh, that was what I originally thought you meant. So getting back to what Van said to me: I would like to hear your reasoning here, as this strikes me as a bad idea. By my reading, there are strict restrictions on removing anyone's copyright or attribution notices (cf Section 4.2 of the Apache license). Section 4 says: You may reproduce and distribute copies of the Work or Derivative Works thereof in any medium, with or without modifications, and in Source or Object form, provided that You meet the following conditions: [...] c. You must retain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works that You distribute, all copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices from the Source form of the Work, excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works Leaving aside the question of who "You" is (as I think one must conclude 'You' is at some point the OpenStack Foundation, which as noted is unique in getting a more permissive license via the CLA), the issue is whether relocating a copyright notice from an individual source file to something like a NOTICE file is a failure to "retain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works that you distribute, all copyright ... notices from the Source form of the Work". I agree that it's not completely clear, but what I'd conclude is that you can nonproblematically relocate such copyright notices except possibly for two cases: 1) Copyright notices from Apache-licensed code taken from a project external to OpenStack (presumably not currently relevant) 2) Copyright notices where the named copyright holder is no longer actively involved in development (i.e., can't be expected to know what's going on) That isn't even necessarily based on an interpretation of the quoted language in the Apache License, since I think mere relocation from per-file to a global location is consistent with that clause in the Apache License, but independently whether it seems like a "bad idea" to use Van's phrase. If developers associated with the named copyright holder are actively involved in development at the time of the change from per-file to global copyright notices, I don't see a problem. Those developers are aware of what is going on and they have an opportunity to object. They similarly had an opportunity to voice an opinion on the issue when the earlier practice was put in place, or when they initially got involved in the project and found that it was in place and that they were expected to follow that earlier rule. - RF