Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
[jgit-dev] RE: Copyright/License Template for JGit



This email is really unfortunate. Janet, Sharon and I had just finished a
meeting where we had reached many of the same conclusions that you had. I
was about to write an email to that effect literally in the next 30 minutes
or so. We are ok, for example with deleting the reference to the "Eclipse
Development License" and the copyright notice that you find so offending.

Unfortunately, the current headers in their exact form are not acceptable to
the Eclipse Foundation. I think we actually agree on most of the important
points, but neither is the status quo acceptable. 

I am tired of email histrionics. At this point the only possible path
forward I can see would a conference call with yourself, Robin and a
representative of the Google legal staff. I actually think that 30-60
minutes on the phone would just fix this. Please let me know if you are
willing to do so.

Mike Milinkovich
Office: +1.613.224.9461 x228
Mobile: +1.613.220.3223

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Content-filter at
> [mailto:postmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Shawn Pearce
> Sent: February-12-10 4:04 PM
> To: Sharon Corbett; Janet Campbell; Mike Milinkovich
> Cc: Barb Cochrane; Matthias Sohn; Robin Rosenberg; jgit-dev
> Subject: Re: Copyright/License Template for JGit
> Sharon Corbett <sharon.corbett@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Please see the following template and license information which will
> to
> > be appended to all JGIT source files for Eclipse Distribution:
> JGit is not changing our header.
> Its elevated beyond just me refusing.  Its also Google, and other
> major contributors, refusing.
> Today I asked some open source IP people at Google about the header
> change.  They generally can speak for Google owned/authored open
> source software and documentation.  They don't want it done.
> Last time I checked, Google and myself own the majority of the JGit
> code base.  Combined we own over 72%.  Robin Rosenberg is also not
> a fan of the change[1], and he owns at least 16%.  So >88% of the
> copyright owners don't want it done.
> The current header[2], is a proper and sufficient application of
> the new-style BSD license.  No additional information is required
> in the header to protect the work, denote terms of use, or to
> document ownership.
> [1]
> [2]
> efd60e13dfe8aeec42b11a13c32b5cea1200c
> If keeping our current header will require board approval, I am
> forced to take it to a board vote, or to pull the JGit project.
> > All rights reserved. This program and the accompanying materials are
> > available under the terms of the Eclipse Development License v1.0 which
> > accompanies this distribution, is reproduced below, and available at
> >
> This paragraph is pointless in this context.  It is not necessary
> when the complete license is immediately below it, and that license
> explains the complete terms.
> We do not wish to add this paragraph to any content that is already
> properly licensed under the new-style BSD license.
> We however will (and do) use the approved, standard *EPL* variant
> of this paragraph in EGit files that are licensed under the EPL.
> > Contributors:
> >
> > {INITIAL AUTHOR} - initial API and implementation and/or initial
> > documentation
> This section is useless.
> As Matthias pointed out elsewhere in this thread, this contribution
> information can be obtained from the IP logs of the project, which
> are themselves just derived from the version control records.
> Further, the project already maintains copyright notices at the
> start of every file, as part of the new-style BSD license applied
> to every file header.  The contributors section does not provide
> any additional benefits.
> Finally, collective works do not need copyright notices for all
> owners, only for one.  Our inclusion of multiple notices at the
> start of each file is overkill.  One is enough.
> As redundant data, the contributors section may actually create
> confusion if this area did not exactly match the VCS records,
> or the IP log, or the copyright notices at the top of the file.
> This may leave room for interpretation at a much later date.
> Therefore this section should be omitted.
> > Eclipse Distribution License - v 1.0
> The name of this license is unnecessary.  It actually spreads
> confusion in the license landscape.  The license is the new-style
> BSD.  With the 3rd clause naming the Eclipse Foundation and its
> contributors.  Its still the new-style BSD license.
> > Copyright (c) 2007, Eclipse Foundation, Inc. and its licensors.
> This copyright statement is incorrectly applied.  The current JGit
> copyright owners *REFUSE* to include it in any of our source files.
> Eclipse Foundation Inc. and its licensors have not supplied any
> content to our project.  It did not receive copyright assignment
> from the contributors.
> This statement may lead 3rd parties who are not following this email
> chain to believe otherwise.  At a later date, without an archive
> of evidence from this email chain, 3rd parties might conclude that
> the Eclipse Foundation holds a copyright on some or all of the
> file content.  That could lead to an infringement on the rights of
> the actual copyright holders.  Since we can already forsee how that
> confusion could occur, we must refuse this line.
> Further, if the foundation believes this copyright statement
> is present to protect the Eclipse Distribution License v1.0
> (EDL)... its wrong.  The EDL is a verbatim copy of the new-style
> BSD license.  If anyone holds copyright on that language, it is
> the original authors of that text, the Regents of the University
> of California[3].  An assertion here that the foundation owns the
> text of the EDL is incorrect.
> [3]
> So, as I said earlier in this message, the JGit project is not
> changing its file headers.
> If this requires board approval, Janet/Mike, please schedule an
> item on an upcoming board agenda so that it can be presented,
> discussed and voted upon.

Back to the top