incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Michael Martin (Legal)" <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Apache DataSketches-java 1.3.0-incubating-RC1
Date Wed, 06 May 2020 21:39:43 GMT
Sorry I am not subscribed so I had to ask Lee to forward these replies.

To clarify a factual question raised by Justin, Verizon Media did sign a
general CCLA for Apache, and our position is that that CCLA applies to
datasketches as it does to any Apache project to which our employees make
authorized contributions.  But that CCLA does not include an assignment of
copyright.  So the NOTICE, to the extent that it intended to provide
accurate notice of who is the copyright owner, is still accurate in
referring to Verizon Media.  The ICLA and CCLA operate in a similar manner
in that regard.

David Jencks seems to understand what I am saying perfectly.  We are not
trying to claim anybody else's copyright.  We have just been trying to be
accurate with the notice.

We can anticipate that other copyright owners are going to contribute (or
have already contributed?) to these files, in which case the NOTICE file
would have to be updated with the names of each copyright owner who
contributes to be perfectly accurate.  I suspect, however, that that would
be more trouble than it is worth.  When Lee came to me to discuss the
NOTICE file, however, all I could know with certainty is that so long as
authorized employees from Verizon Media are contributing, it is accurate to
list Verizon Media as a copyright owner; and so long as their contributions
are made in a given year, it is accurate to list that year.

But it is undesirable, of course, for some copyright owners to be listed
and not others.  And I take it that this is at least part of why David
expects there to be an end date to Verizon's copyright even though (for the
reasons explained) that end date is not technically accurate.  I am under
the impression that the group understands the code here to be in a digital
commons — which it is as a result of the mutual license, but is not from
the point of view of ownership.  I can see how cutting the date of
copyright off at the date of donation could be interpreted as an
acknowledgement that Verizon Media is no longer the *sole* copyright owner
of the code in the project, especially if the list of copyright owners were
not updated after that date.  While not perfectly accurate, this compromise
would simultaneously avoid some of the confusion we've seen raised here
*and* the need to make constant updates to the NOTICE file.  I'd be
amenable to that compromise personally.

On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 1:44 PM leerho <> wrote:

> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: David Jencks <>
> Date: Mon, May 4, 2020 at 5:18 PM
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache DataSketches-java 1.3.0-incubating-RC1
> To: <>
> FWIW (not much) Michael Martin’s statements match my understanding. What
> he says is stated from a different point of view or with different emphasis
> than most posts here, but doesn’t differ AFAICT.  The only point that
> remains unclear to me is the end date of Verizon’s explicitly asserted
> copyright.  I’d expect it to have an end date as of the code donation,
> since after that not all the code will be copyright Verizon because
> presumably there are non-Verizon-employee contributors.  IIUC Michael is
> saying all ongoing contributions from Verizon employees are still copyright
> Verizon, which is the normal state of affairs for employees in the US.   I
> don’t think he is claiming Verizon copyright on code contributed by others.
> David Jencks
> > On May 4, 2020, at 4:00 PM, Justin Mclean <>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> >> I find no record of Verizon Media or its predecessors (including Yahoo
> and
> >> Oath) having assigned copyright to Apache, either with respect to the
> code
> >> that existed at the time the project joined the incubator or with
> respect
> >> to the authorized contributions made by Lee and others since then.  And
> to
> >> be clear, pursuant to the terms of their employment agreements, neither
> Lee
> >> nor any of the other Verizon Media employees contributing to the project
> >> actually own copyright to their contributions.  Verizon Media owns that
> >> copyright.
> >
> > If this is the case that as per section 4 in the ICLA my understanding
> (and I may be mistaken) is we something more from Verizon Media ie, ether
> they waive rights or sign a CCLA. I do see we have a CCLA on file from
> Verizon Media but I’m not 100% if it was for this project and employees as
> I can't find any discussion of it on your mailing list.
> >
> > From a project point of view this is slightly concerning in other ways,
> I suggest you read [1][2][3][4]
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Justin
> >
> > 1.
> > 2.
> > 3.
> > 4. (independence)
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > For additional commands, e-mail:
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:


Michael F. Martin

Associate General Counsel

+1 408-349-4106
Sunnyvale, California

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message