ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Conor MacNeill" <>
Subject RE: The Copyright dispute continues: com.oreilly....
Date Thu, 20 Jul 2000 12:04:12 GMT

IANAL, etc,etc

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim O'Brien []
> Humble opinion follows:

> 1. Jason Hunter has reserved all rights.  This begs the question,
> if you've
> reserved all rights what legal repercussions does this have on the
> contributions made by the Apache community?  The standard Apache license
> does not reserve all rights becuase this is not a restrictive commercial
> license.   Legally joint copyright owners are required to share
> any and all
> profits from the use of this code.  See

Well, all the Apache source files I had a quick look at (ant files, JServ
files) have

 * Copyright (c) 1997-1999 The Java Apache Project.  All rights reserved.

so I'm not sure what exactly you mean here.

> 2. "Updates should be done in conjunction with".
> These classes
> were made to demonstrate servlets in Jason's Servlets book ( which is a
> great book ), but donating a source file to the Apache group which is tied
> to an external non-community project flies in the face of every other code
> donation.  What if someone wants to change the class in a way
> that conflicts
> with the interests of the maintainers of

I think Jason has said we are free to diverge the code. Correect me if I am
wrong. If that is wrong, then it would be better to make the code available
as a jar, perhaps included in the binary distribution, IMHO.

> 3. I can't find a precedent in watchdog, struts, slide, ant, tomcat, or
> taglibs.  Please correct me here, but it looks like every class under the
> jakarta umbrella in CVS is under org.apache.
> If Apache opens up the door for joint copyright ownership with
> Jason Hunter,
> what happens when IBM or Sun comes along and wants to donate code to the
> Apache project.  Could they point to the joint ownership as an
> option?  IBM
> would reap the benefits of open source development, but reserve all rights
> for future use.  That turns us all into unpaid volunteers for IBM or Sun.

I guess the question is what does joint ownership really mean? Can one of
the owners affect the other owner's use and development of the code.

> I'd be happy to improve on the design of the class if it were under ASF
> license only, but in the meantime until I get a clear statement from the
> Apache group, I'm staying away from that code.

I agree that a clear statement would be nice. I am not sure if we are
waiting for one from Stefano Mazzocchi or not. On one hand, I am not that
keen on the joint ownership idea. I wonder if code I contribute should have
myself as a joint copyright owner. Is that where we want to be heading. And
yet, OTOH I see Jason's desire to use the code he has contributed in his own
publications. Is there another solution, I don't know.

> Also, the class in Question: com.oreilly.servlets.MailMessage isn't being
> used.

Yes, it would have been nice to have a task as well.


View raw message