License is Apache 2.0, but several files are "all rights reserved".

[Artanis]

The LICENSE file claims google-sheets is Apache 2.0, but a number of files have the following header:

<!-- Copyright (c) 2014 Google Inc. All rights reserved. -->

These are the files:

/tests/google-sheet.html
/tests/index.html
/tests/private.html
/tests/published.html
/tests/tests.html
/demo-private.html
/demo.html
/index.html

This suggests that the only copyright-able files in this repository that are Apache 2.0 licensed are README.md and google-sheets.html. Is this intended?

[ebidel]

I'm far from an expert here, but my understanding is that copyright and
licensing are two different things. The former maintains Google as the
creative author. The latter says how others can use this work.

http://www.majordojo.com/2010/07/license-vs-copyright.php

On Sat, Feb 14, 2015, 11:39 PM Erik Youngren [email protected]
wrote:

The LICENSE file claims google-sheets is Apache 2.0, but a number of files
have the following header:

These are the files:

/tests/google-sheet.html
/tests/index.html
/tests/private.html
/tests/published.html
/tests/tests.html
/demo-private.html
/demo.html
/index.html

This suggests that the only copyright-able files in this repository that
are Apache 2.0 licensed are README.md and google-sheets.html. Is this
intended?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#12.

[Artanis]

They are different, yes. The question is what rights have been granted to us by Google. One of the licenses is Apache 2.0, an OSI-approved license.

The other is "All rights reserved [by Google]."

[ebidel]

All of the licenses are Apache 2.0, which is very flexible.
https://tldrlegal.com/license/apache-license-2.0-%28apache-2.0%29

If you have particular examples of what you'd like to do, I can find out
specifics.

On Sun Feb 15 2015 at 2:55:11 PM Erik Youngren [email protected]
wrote:

They are different, yes. The question is what rights have been granted to
us by Google. One of the licenses is Apache 2.0, an OSI-approved license.

The other is "All rights reserved [by Google]."

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#12 (comment)
.

[Artanis]

All I'm trying to say is that the licensing is ambiguous for these files.

My understanding was that licensing 'flows' from root to leaf, so a license could be overridden by another license deeper in the tree, and all of them by a license physically in the file in question. This enables a project to embed files from other projects, so long as the licences are compatible and satisfied.

My intent was to copy the tests and build a compatible spreadsheets element that also works with the new spreadsheets API. According to Apache 2.0, I'd be able to do that so long as I kept the license and copyright information and note any changes. When I try to do that, there's already <!-- Copyright (c) 2014 Google Inc. All rights reserved. -->. Do I replace that with the contents of LICENSE, or insert it just below? The existing header suggests I don't have the right to make those changes. If I do anyway, which one applies?

If I depend on this element in a project, the whole repository could be hosted by my server from bower_components, but can I even redistribute these files? What does it mean if someone downloads tests/private.html from me instead of from Github?

I hope I'm able to adequately convey the confusion I'm seeing here. If I haven't or if you think I'm wrong or that this is spurious, I'm not going to keep hammering at it.