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 <lee...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: David Jencks <david.a.jen...@gmail.com> > Date: Mon, May 4, 2020 at 5:18 PM > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache DataSketches-java 1.3.0-incubating-RC1 > To: <general@incubator.apache.org> > > > 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 <jus...@classsoftware.com> > 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. https://www.apache.org/foundation/faq.html#corporate-membership > > 2. https://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#hats > > 3. http://community.apache.org/projectIndependence.html > > 4. https://www.apache.org/theapacheway/ (independence) > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > -- <http://www.verizonmedia.com> Michael F. Martin Associate General Counsel +1 408-349-4106 Sunnyvale, California
