> I'd remove the design provenance from LICENSE. LICENSE is for license terms and for third-party code you've actually incorporated. Follow the how-to for what goes in LICENSE [1]
Thanks for your advice. This sounds reasonable to me. > If you do want ASF headers on those files, the process is IP clearance. But fastpool is already Apache-2.0, so nothing is wrong as it stands, and I don't see what you gain. Yes it is. Let me retain the original headers then. Best, tison. <[email protected]> 于2026年9月4日周五 16:00写道： > Hi, > > I'd remove the design provenance from LICENSE. LICENSE is for license > terms and for third-party code you've actually incorporated. Follow the > how-to for what goes in LICENSE [1] > > Keep the fastpool attribution. "I wrote most of it" isn't the test. The > copyright line says FastLabs Developers, so it's held by the people who > wrote it, and you're one of them, not all of them. You can contribute your > own work under your ICLA, but you can't grant someone else's. > > If you do want ASF headers on those files, the process is IP clearance. > But fastpool is already Apache-2.0, so nothing is wrong as it stands, and I > don't see what you gain. > > I'd also not test policy boundaries in a release that's already had two > false starts. Get the ASF release done with the safe option, and if you > want the boundary settled, raise it separately on legal-discuss. > > Kind regards, > > Justin > > 1. https://infra.apache.org/licensing-howto.html
