ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Tim O'Brien" <>
Subject The Copyright dispute continues: com.oreilly....
Date Wed, 19 Jul 2000 19:42:32 GMT
Humble opinion follows:

Don't you see how this turns people away from improving that code?

Here is the copyright:

// Copyright (c) 2000 Jason Hunter <> and
// The Apache Software Foundation.  All rights reserved.
// NOTE:
//   This code is mirrored from
//   Updates should be done in conjunction with
//   and the larger com.oreilly.servlet project

 * The Apache Software License, Version 1.1

   Apache license which is in every file.....


At first, it looks very innocuous, Jason and Apache are joint copyright
owners, but upon further inspection we uncover three disturbing issues:

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

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

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'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.

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

Tim O'Brien

-----Original Message-----
From: Jason Hunter []
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2000 12:30 PM
Subject: Re: cvs commit:....

> I was in the
> middle of writing some code to use, but the multiple
> copyrights scared me off.

No reason to be scared.  The code is under the Apache license.  That's
what matters.  The ASF is even a joint copyright holder which should
ease the concerns of even the most paranoid.


View raw message