[jgit-dev] Re: Copyright/License Template for JGit

[Shawn Pearce <sop@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Sharon Corbett <sharon.corbett@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Please see the following template and license information which will need 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] http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/jgit-dev/msg00116.html
[2] http://egit.eclipse.org/w/?p=jgit.git;a=blob;f=org.eclipse.jgit/src/org/eclipse/jgit/lib/Config.java;h=783540177978550c0e83e93108bc5fa08bcd46b3;hb=1c3efd60e13dfe8aeec42b11a13c32b5cea1200c


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 made
> available under the terms of the Eclipse Development License v1.0 which
> accompanies this distribution, is reproduced below, and available at
> http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/edl-v10.php

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] http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php


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.