Re: Mistaken attributions?
On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 11:34 AM, Jim Jagielski <jim@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Dec 15, 2017, at 11:26 AM, William A Rowe Jr <wrowe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Actually remoteip isn't a showstopper... I find it demotivating and against the spirit of httpd development, but am NOT vetoing it, and was showing an example of proper form when attribution is desired.
>> mod_h2 is a showstopper. It is missing an ASF copyright statement altogether.
> As does (from a quick little scan):
> - ./modules/filters/mod_proxy_html.c
> - ./modules/filters/mod_sed.c
> - ./modules/filters/mod_xml2enc.c
> - ./modules/filters/regexp.c
> - ./modules/filters/sed0.c
> - ./modules/filters/sed1.c
> - ./server/util_expr_parse.c
> - ./server/util_pcre.c
> (likely more)
So let's look at what the ASF has to say about this? The project
has undergone over 20 years of source file evolution, so there are
lots of statements that aren't applicable anymore, and perhaps
some examples of borrowed code where a copyright statement
must remain - util_pcre.c is an example of one or the other.
We have two broad categories; ASF works ... e.g. the direct
contributions by copyright holders, such as mod_proxy_html,
mod_xml2enc and mod_http2, and others such as mod_sed
donated. This applies;
If Stefen, Nick and yourself could review and correct sources
files you respectively donated, that would be helpful.
Others are lifted under license from other parties; these
must retain both the copyright attribution and original license
(e.g. MIT, BSD etc); an example is util_expr_parse.c which is
licensed under a special exception to the GPL as clearly
documented in that file;
> Plus many in APR land as well...
> Will you be fixing them or simply complaining?
Yes, I'm happy to take on the process of aligning the APR
project with the ASF license/copyright policy.