I wonder whether this is actually needed for _historic_ commits: The EF does not claim the copyright for the _history_, but only lists (correctly!) the files as they had been back then, with the licence they had been published under. I do not see any legal problems, actually, as the past connot be modified, and as Oracle was the sole owner. It will simply look like an owner change and licence change when comparing Oracle's last commit with EF's first one, which is the complete truth.
From: ee4j-community-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ee4j-community-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike Milinkovich
Sent: Sonntag, 14. Januar 2018 17:21
To: EE4J community discussions
Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] Retaining History for incoming EE4J Projects
Still I do not see the difference between the _latest_ commit and any other commit actually. The OCAs had been signed for those commits, too, and the licence was pretty much the same back then already. So what _additional_ work has to be done exactly for _each_ commit?
Amongst other things: change all the file headers to the new licenses and copyright notices.
On 2018-01-14 10:19 AM, Mrinal Kanti wrote:
When the older versions are removed, we may also lose track of the initial contributors. Given the fact that earlier versions were released under GPLv2 (with CE) and newer versions can also be used under EPL, doesn't that require consent from ALL initial contributors?
Contributors signed the Sun (later Oracle) Contributor Agreement which provides Sun/Oracle with joint ownership of the contributions. All necessary consents and licensing issues have been taken care of.
I assume that Oracle would have cleared all license related issues but want to know if it would suffice for indemnification should the need ever arise in future.
What indemnification? No open source license past, present or future provides an indemnification.
Do we have any provision for tracking initial contributor consent publicly, just to be on the safe side?
No, as none is required.