Comment 2 for bug 1698652

awesome, thank you for adding the copyright....
but.. ahh... that brings us on to a second
issue: who added the apache 2 license
without my authorisation or consent?

i would not release code under the Apache
Software License: i would release it under
the GPLv3+. in this instance as it is a
stand-alone program that does not impact
the drizzle project as it's not "linked"
etc. etc.

i must apologise because i was not expecting
this file to be useful, so i did not put a
license notice in it (at all) at the time that
i wrote it. which means in effect "all rights
reserved, and you need to contact me to ask
for my permission to use it, and to request
under what license conditions it may be used".

i have not received any such communication
from the drizzle team in any way, shape or form.

so, copyright law being what it is, you may not
assume that you have the right to assign an
arbitrary license to this copyrighted work: only
the copyright holder (myself) may decide that,
and i choose the GPLv3+, not the Apache Software
License v2.

much appreciated if you could correct this second
oversight. in addition could we possible follow
the correct bugtracking procedure, instead of
marking the bug as "invalid"? that would seem
to indicate that you are claiming that the legal
assertion of copyright ownership of this file
is invalid. that would be very unfortunate if
any member of the drizzle team was attempting
to make such a claim. so would you agree that it
would be much better to follow "normal" bugreporting
procedure i.e. to mark the bug in the normal way:
accepted, in progress, fixed, reviewed etc.