Chef steps and licensing

Chef Infra (archive)
1

Hi,
I’ve noticed some Chef step files have the opscode copyright and
license header text, some don’t.
Given I’m refactoring some/many of these steps, I wonder what should
be carried over in terms of licensing.
To wit. A step gets split into a Cucumber step file and an API file.
The API file contains the logic - often different from the Chef logic
(e.g uses Aruba or custom methods) - sometimes following quite closely
the original logic.
The step description too is sometimes the same, different or just similar.

So the questions. What do the various Authors and Opscode expect:

  • When the API logic is influenced by Chef’s
  • When some of the step regexps are Chef’s
  • When the original step file has no license/copyright text

Essentially the issue seems to be that ‘portions’ of a file have come
from, been influenced by the Opscode/Chef code.
Yet it doesn’t seem right that I can take the license/copyright text of say:

Author:: Adam Jacob (adam@opscode.com)

Copyright:: Copyright © 2008 Opscode, Inc.

License:: Apache License, Version 2.0

etc

and change it to arbitrarily assert that only portions of the file are
now Authored by Adam Jacob copyright by Opscode.

Portions Authored:: Adam Jacob (adam@opscode.com)

Portions Copyright:: Copyright © 2008 Opscode, Inc.

License:: Apache License, Version 2.0

etc

That is, it seem I need to get their agreement. And then the
agreement of anyone else whose authorship/copyright I come across?
Correct?

TIA

–
πόλλ’ οἶδ ἀλώπηξ, ἀλλ’ ἐχῖνος ἓν μέγα
[The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing.]
Archilochus, Greek poet (c. 680 BC – c. 645 BC)
http://wiki.hedgehogshiatus.com

2

On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Hedge Hog hedgehogshiatus@gmail.com wrote:

I've noticed some Chef step files have the opscode copyright and
license header text, some don't.
Given I'm refactoring some/many of these steps, I wonder what should
be carried over in terms of licensing.
To wit. A step gets split into a Cucumber step file and an API file.
The API file contains the logic - often different from the Chef logic
(e.g uses Aruba or custom methods) - sometimes following quite closely
the original logic.
The step description too is sometimes the same, different or just similar.

So the questions. What do the various Authors and Opscode expect:

  • When the API logic is influenced by Chef's
  • When some of the step regexps are Chef's
  • When the original step file has no license/copyright text

Essentially the issue seems to be that 'portions' of a file have come
from, been influenced by the Opscode/Chef code.

You need to put attribution about the origins of some of the code in
the NOTICE file for your app. On an individual header, you can just
add yourself as an author/copyright holder. If the original step file
is lacking the license header, please let us know, so we can add one.
Even in their absence, they are covered by the Apache 2 license.

Yet it doesn't seem right that I can take the license/copyright text of say:

Author:: Adam Jacob (adam@opscode.com)

Copyright:: Copyright (c) 2008 Opscode, Inc.

License:: Apache License, Version 2.0

etc

and change it to arbitrarily assert that only portions of the file are
now Authored by Adam Jacob copyright by Opscode.

Portions Authored:: Adam Jacob (adam@opscode.com)

Portions Copyright:: Copyright (c) 2008 Opscode, Inc.

License:: Apache License, Version 2.0

etc

You can absolutely put some text in the header file saying that your
new work is based on the old work, and the original header is below.

That is, it seem I need to get their agreement. And then the
agreement of anyone else whose authorship/copyright I come across?
Correct?

You can re-use the work without having to get the agreement of the
original authors, as long as you're not going to be changing the
licensing terms at all (ie: you release the final derived work as
Apache 2) and you don't modify the fact that the code you are
incorporating remains copyrighted by the original authors.

The Apache License grants these rights to those who receive a copy of
the software.

Happy to help,
Adam

--
Opscode, Inc.
Adam Jacob, Chief Product Officer
T: (206) 619-7151 E: adam@opscode.com

3

On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Adam Jacob adam@opscode.com wrote:

On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Hedge Hog hedgehogshiatus@gmail.com wrote:

I've noticed some Chef step files have the opscode copyright and
license header text, some don't.
Given I'm refactoring some/many of these steps, I wonder what should
be carried over in terms of licensing.
To wit. A step gets split into a Cucumber step file and an API file.
The API file contains the logic - often different from the Chef logic
(e.g uses Aruba or custom methods) - sometimes following quite closely
the original logic.
The step description too is sometimes the same, different or just similar.

So the questions. What do the various Authors and Opscode expect:

  • When the API logic is influenced by Chef's
  • When some of the step regexps are Chef's
  • When the original step file has no license/copyright text

Essentially the issue seems to be that 'portions' of a file have come
from, been influenced by the Opscode/Chef code.

You need to put attribution about the origins of some of the code in
the NOTICE file for your app. On an individual header, you can just
add yourself as an author/copyright holder. If the original step file
is lacking the license header, please let us know, so we can add one.
Even in their absence, they are covered by the Apache 2 license.

Yet it doesn't seem right that I can take the license/copyright text of say:

Author:: Adam Jacob (adam@opscode.com)

Copyright:: Copyright (c) 2008 Opscode, Inc.

License:: Apache License, Version 2.0

etc

and change it to arbitrarily assert that only portions of the file are
now Authored by Adam Jacob copyright by Opscode.

Portions Authored:: Adam Jacob (adam@opscode.com)

Portions Copyright:: Copyright (c) 2008 Opscode, Inc.

License:: Apache License, Version 2.0

etc

You can absolutely put some text in the header file saying that your
new work is based on the old work, and the original header is below.

That is, it seem I need to get their agreement. And then the
agreement of anyone else whose authorship/copyright I come across?
Correct?

You can re-use the work without having to get the agreement of the
original authors, as long as you're not going to be changing the
licensing terms at all (ie: you release the final derived work as
Apache 2) and you don't modify the fact that the code you are
incorporating remains copyrighted by the original authors.

The Apache License grants these rights to those who receive a copy of
the software.

Fantastic Adam, thanks.

Happy to help,
Adam

--
Opscode, Inc.
Adam Jacob, Chief Product Officer
T: (206) 619-7151 E: adam@opscode.com

--
πόλλ' οἶδ ἀλώπηξ, ἀλλ' ἐχῖνος ἓν μέγα
[The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing.]
Archilochus, Greek poet (c. 680 BC – c. 645 BC)
http://wiki.hedgehogshiatus.com

4

On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Adam Jacob adam@opscode.com wrote:

On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Hedge Hog hedgehogshiatus@gmail.com wrote:

I've noticed some Chef step files have the opscode copyright and
license header text, some don't.
Given I'm refactoring some/many of these steps, I wonder what should
be carried over in terms of licensing.
To wit. A step gets split into a Cucumber step file and an API file.
The API file contains the logic - often different from the Chef logic
(e.g uses Aruba or custom methods) - sometimes following quite closely
the original logic.
The step description too is sometimes the same, different or just similar.

So the questions. What do the various Authors and Opscode expect:

  • When the API logic is influenced by Chef's
  • When some of the step regexps are Chef's
  • When the original step file has no license/copyright text

Essentially the issue seems to be that 'portions' of a file have come
from, been influenced by the Opscode/Chef code.

You need to put attribution about the origins of some of the code in
the NOTICE file for your app. On an individual header, you can just
add yourself as an author/copyright holder. If the original step file
is lacking the license header, please let us know, so we can add one.

Many (all?) feature files seem to be unattributed in terms of Authorship.
Unless I hear otherwise I'll just add an Opscode copyright header to any
feature files I derive from these. Or do you want someone nominated
as the Author of these?

Cheers

Even in their absence, they are covered by the Apache 2 license.

Yet it doesn't seem right that I can take the license/copyright text of say:

Author:: Adam Jacob (adam@opscode.com)

Copyright:: Copyright (c) 2008 Opscode, Inc.

License:: Apache License, Version 2.0

etc

and change it to arbitrarily assert that only portions of the file are
now Authored by Adam Jacob copyright by Opscode.

Portions Authored:: Adam Jacob (adam@opscode.com)

Portions Copyright:: Copyright (c) 2008 Opscode, Inc.

License:: Apache License, Version 2.0

etc

You can absolutely put some text in the header file saying that your
new work is based on the old work, and the original header is below.

That is, it seem I need to get their agreement. And then the
agreement of anyone else whose authorship/copyright I come across?
Correct?

You can re-use the work without having to get the agreement of the
original authors, as long as you're not going to be changing the
licensing terms at all (ie: you release the final derived work as
Apache 2) and you don't modify the fact that the code you are
incorporating remains copyrighted by the original authors.

The Apache License grants these rights to those who receive a copy of
the software.

Happy to help,
Adam

--
Opscode, Inc.
Adam Jacob, Chief Product Officer
T: (206) 619-7151 E: adam@opscode.com

--
πόλλ' οἶδ ἀλώπηξ, ἀλλ' ἐχῖνος ἓν μέγα
[The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing.]
Archilochus, Greek poet (c. 680 BC – c. 645 BC)
http://wiki.hedgehogshiatus.com

5

The detail from this discussion has now been added to as two FAQs on How To
Contribute http://wiki.opscode.com/display/chef/How+to+Contribute within
the Chef Wiki.

Thanks,

Tom Thomas | Opscode, Inc.
tom@opscode.com | (c) 206.234.1193 | www.opscode.com

On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Adam Jacob adam@opscode.com wrote:

On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Hedge Hog hedgehogshiatus@gmail.com
wrote:

I've noticed some Chef step files have the opscode copyright and
license header text, some don't.
Given I'm refactoring some/many of these steps, I wonder what should
be carried over in terms of licensing.
To wit. A step gets split into a Cucumber step file and an API file.
The API file contains the logic - often different from the Chef logic
(e.g uses Aruba or custom methods) - sometimes following quite closely
the original logic.
The step description too is sometimes the same, different or just
similar.

So the questions. What do the various Authors and Opscode expect:

  • When the API logic is influenced by Chef's
  • When some of the step regexps are Chef's
  • When the original step file has no license/copyright text

Essentially the issue seems to be that 'portions' of a file have come
from, been influenced by the Opscode/Chef code.

You need to put attribution about the origins of some of the code in
the NOTICE file for your app. On an individual header, you can just
add yourself as an author/copyright holder. If the original step file
is lacking the license header, please let us know, so we can add one.
Even in their absence, they are covered by the Apache 2 license.

Yet it doesn't seem right that I can take the license/copyright text of
say:

Author:: Adam Jacob (adam@opscode.com)

Copyright:: Copyright (c) 2008 Opscode, Inc.

License:: Apache License, Version 2.0

etc

and change it to arbitrarily assert that only portions of the file are
now Authored by Adam Jacob copyright by Opscode.

Portions Authored:: Adam Jacob (adam@opscode.com)

Portions Copyright:: Copyright (c) 2008 Opscode, Inc.

License:: Apache License, Version 2.0

etc

You can absolutely put some text in the header file saying that your
new work is based on the old work, and the original header is below.

That is, it seem I need to get their agreement. And then the
agreement of anyone else whose authorship/copyright I come across?
Correct?

You can re-use the work without having to get the agreement of the
original authors, as long as you're not going to be changing the
licensing terms at all (ie: you release the final derived work as
Apache 2) and you don't modify the fact that the code you are
incorporating remains copyrighted by the original authors.

The Apache License grants these rights to those who receive a copy of
the software.

Happy to help,
Adam

--
Opscode, Inc.
Adam Jacob, Chief Product Officer
T: (206) 619-7151 E: adam@opscode.com

6

The wording could be improved. "you release the final derived work as
Apache 2" describes GPL style copy left. The point of Apache 2 is that
derived works can be released under a proprietary license.

On 04/15/2011 12:30 PM, Tom Thomas wrote:

The detail from this discussion has now been added to as two FAQs on How
To Contribute http://wiki.opscode.com/display/chef/How+to+Contribute
within the Chef Wiki.

Thanks,

Tom Thomas | Opscode, Inc.
tom@opscode.com mailto:tom@opscode.com | (c) 206.234.1193
|www.opscode.com http://www.opscode.com/

On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Adam Jacob <adam@opscode.com
mailto:adam@opscode.com> wrote:

On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Hedge Hog
<hedgehogshiatus@gmail.com <mailto:hedgehogshiatus@gmail.com>> wrote:
 > I've noticed some Chef step files have the opscode copyright and
 > license header text, some don't.
 > Given I'm refactoring some/many of these steps, I wonder what should
 > be carried over in terms of licensing.
 > To wit.  A step gets split into a Cucumber step file and an API file.
 > The API file contains the logic - often different from the Chef logic
 > (e.g uses Aruba or custom methods) - sometimes following quite
closely
 > the original logic.
 > The step description too is sometimes the same, different or just
similar.
 >
 > So the questions.  What do the various Authors and Opscode expect:
 >  - When the API logic is influenced by Chef's
 >  - When some of the step regexps are Chef's
 >  - When the original step file has no license/copyright text
 >
 > Essentially the issue seems to be that 'portions' of a file have come
 > from, been influenced by the Opscode/Chef code.

You need to put attribution about the origins of some of the code in
the NOTICE file for your app. On an individual header, you can just
add yourself as an author/copyright holder. If the original step file
is lacking the license header, please let us know, so we can add one.
Even in their absence, they are covered by the Apache 2 license.

 > Yet it doesn't seem right that I can take the license/copyright
text of say:
 >
 > # Author:: Adam Jacob (<adam@opscode.com <mailto:adam@opscode.com>>)
 > # Copyright:: Copyright (c) 2008 Opscode, Inc.
 > # License:: Apache License, Version 2.0
 > #
 > etc
 >
 > and change it to arbitrarily assert that only portions of the
file are
 > now Authored by Adam Jacob copyright by Opscode.
 >
 > # Portions Authored:: Adam Jacob (<adam@opscode.com
<mailto:adam@opscode.com>>)
 > # Portions Copyright:: Copyright (c) 2008 Opscode, Inc.
 > # License:: Apache License, Version 2.0
 > #
 > etc

You can absolutely put some text in the header file saying that your
new work is based on the old work, and the original header is below.

 > That is, it seem I need to get their agreement.   And then the
 > agreement of anyone else whose authorship/copyright I come across?
 > Correct?

You can re-use the work without having to get the agreement of the
original authors, as long as you're not going to be changing the
licensing terms at all (ie: you release the final derived work as
Apache 2) *and* you don't modify the fact that the code you are
incorporating remains copyrighted by the original authors.

The Apache License grants these rights to those who receive a copy of
the software.

Happy to help,
Adam

--
Opscode, Inc.
Adam Jacob, Chief Product Officer
T: (206) 619-7151 <tel:%28206%29%20619-7151> E: adam@opscode.com
<mailto:adam@opscode.com>
7

The intention of the statement was an elaboration on that which preceded
it... "you're not going to be changing the licensing terms at all", (to GPL
or whatever - you maintain the existing licensing structure/agreement).

To hopefully make the clarification more clarified, I changed it to "(ie:
you maintain and fulfill Apache 2 licensing
requirementshttp://wiki.opscode.com/display/chef/Apache+License
)"

Thanks for the feedback!

Thanks,

Tom Thomas | Opscode, Inc.
tom@opscode.com | (c) 206.234.1193 | www.opscode.com

On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 11:47 AM, consiliens consiliens@gmail.com wrote:

The wording could be improved. "you release the final derived work as
Apache 2" describes GPL style copy left. The point of Apache 2 is that
derived works can be released under a proprietary license.

On 04/15/2011 12:30 PM, Tom Thomas wrote:

The detail from this discussion has now been added to as two FAQs on How
To Contribute http://wiki.opscode.com/display/chef/How+to+Contribute

within the Chef Wiki.

Thanks,

Tom Thomas | Opscode, Inc.
tom@opscode.com mailto:tom@opscode.com | (c) 206.234.1193
|www.opscode.com http://www.opscode.com/

On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Adam Jacob <adam@opscode.com
mailto:adam@opscode.com> wrote:

On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Hedge Hog
<hedgehogshiatus@gmail.com mailto:hedgehogshiatus@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've noticed some Chef step files have the opscode copyright and
> license header text, some don't.
> Given I'm refactoring some/many of these steps, I wonder what should
> be carried over in terms of licensing.
> To wit. A step gets split into a Cucumber step file and an API
file.
> The API file contains the logic - often different from the Chef
logic
> (e.g uses Aruba or custom methods) - sometimes following quite
closely
> the original logic.
> The step description too is sometimes the same, different or just
similar.
>
> So the questions. What do the various Authors and Opscode expect:
> - When the API logic is influenced by Chef's
> - When some of the step regexps are Chef's
> - When the original step file has no license/copyright text
>
> Essentially the issue seems to be that 'portions' of a file have
come
> from, been influenced by the Opscode/Chef code.

You need to put attribution about the origins of some of the code in
the NOTICE file for your app. On an individual header, you can just
add yourself as an author/copyright holder. If the original step file
is lacking the license header, please let us know, so we can add one.
Even in their absence, they are covered by the Apache 2 license.

> Yet it doesn't seem right that I can take the license/copyright

text of say:
>
> # Author:: Adam Jacob (<adam@opscode.com <mailto:adam@opscode.com

)

> # Copyright:: Copyright (c) 2008 Opscode, Inc.
> # License:: Apache License, Version 2.0
> #
> etc
>
> and change it to arbitrarily assert that only portions of the

file are
> now Authored by Adam Jacob copyright by Opscode.
>
> # Portions Authored:: Adam Jacob (<adam@opscode.com
mailto:adam@opscode.com>)

> # Portions Copyright:: Copyright (c) 2008 Opscode, Inc.
> # License:: Apache License, Version 2.0
> #
> etc

You can absolutely put some text in the header file saying that your
new work is based on the old work, and the original header is below.

> That is, it seem I need to get their agreement.   And then the
> agreement of anyone else whose authorship/copyright I come across?
> Correct?

You can re-use the work without having to get the agreement of the
original authors, as long as you're not going to be changing the
licensing terms at all (ie: you release the final derived work as
Apache 2) and you don't modify the fact that the code you are
incorporating remains copyrighted by the original authors.

The Apache License grants these rights to those who receive a copy of
the software.

Happy to help,
Adam

--
Opscode, Inc.
Adam Jacob, Chief Product Officer
T: (206) 619-7151 tel:(206)%20619-7151 E: adam@opscode.com
mailto:adam@opscode.com

8

The new wording is much better. Thank you.

On 04/15/2011 01:24 PM, Tom Thomas wrote:

The intention of the statement was an elaboration on that which preceded
it... "you're not going to be changing the licensing terms at all", (to
GPL or whatever - you maintain the existing licensing structure/agreement).

To hopefully make the clarification more clarified, I changed it to
"(ie: you maintain and fulfill Apache 2 licensing requirements
http://wiki.opscode.com/display/chef/Apache+License)"

Thanks for the feedback!

Thanks,

Tom Thomas | Opscode, Inc.
tom@opscode.com mailto:tom@opscode.com | (c) 206.234.1193
|www.opscode.com http://www.opscode.com/

On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 11:47 AM, consiliens <consiliens@gmail.com
mailto:consiliens@gmail.com> wrote:

The wording could be improved. "you release the final derived work
as Apache 2" describes GPL style copy left.  The point of Apache 2
is that derived works can be released under a proprietary license.


On 04/15/2011 12:30 PM, Tom Thomas wrote:

    The detail from this discussion has now been added to as two
    FAQs on How
    To Contribute
    <http://wiki.opscode.com/display/chef/How+to+Contribute>

    within the Chef Wiki.

    Thanks,

    Tom Thomas | Opscode, Inc.
    tom@opscode.com <mailto:tom@opscode.com> <mailto:tom@opscode.com
    <mailto:tom@opscode.com>> | (c) 206.234.1193 <tel:206.234.1193>
    |www.opscode.com <http://www.opscode.com> <http://www.opscode.com/>





    On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Adam Jacob <adam@opscode.com
    <mailto:adam@opscode.com>
    <mailto:adam@opscode.com <mailto:adam@opscode.com>>> wrote:

        On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Hedge Hog
    <hedgehogshiatus@gmail.com <mailto:hedgehogshiatus@gmail.com>
    <mailto:hedgehogshiatus@gmail.com
    <mailto:hedgehogshiatus@gmail.com>>> wrote:
     > I've noticed some Chef step files have the opscode copyright and
     > license header text, some don't.
     > Given I'm refactoring some/many of these steps, I wonder what
    should
     > be carried over in terms of licensing.
     > To wit.  A step gets split into a Cucumber step file and an
    API file.
     > The API file contains the logic - often different from the
    Chef logic
     > (e.g uses Aruba or custom methods) - sometimes following quite
        closely
     > the original logic.
     > The step description too is sometimes the same, different or just
        similar.
     >
     > So the questions.  What do the various Authors and Opscode
    expect:
     >  - When the API logic is influenced by Chef's
     >  - When some of the step regexps are Chef's
     >  - When the original step file has no license/copyright text
     >
     > Essentially the issue seems to be that 'portions' of a file
    have come
     > from, been influenced by the Opscode/Chef code.

        You need to put attribution about the origins of some of the
    code in
        the NOTICE file for your app. On an individual header, you
    can just
        add yourself as an author/copyright holder. If the original
    step file
        is lacking the license header, please let us know, so we can
    add one.
        Even in their absence, they are covered by the Apache 2 license.

     > Yet it doesn't seem right that I can take the license/copyright
        text of say:
     >
     > # Author:: Adam Jacob (<adam@opscode.com
    <mailto:adam@opscode.com> <mailto:adam@opscode.com
    <mailto:adam@opscode.com>>>)

     > # Copyright:: Copyright (c) 2008 Opscode, Inc.
     > # License:: Apache License, Version 2.0
     > #
     > etc
     >
     > and change it to arbitrarily assert that only portions of the
        file are
     > now Authored by Adam Jacob copyright by Opscode.
     >
     > # Portions Authored:: Adam Jacob (<adam@opscode.com
    <mailto:adam@opscode.com>
    <mailto:adam@opscode.com <mailto:adam@opscode.com>>>)

     > # Portions Copyright:: Copyright (c) 2008 Opscode, Inc.
     > # License:: Apache License, Version 2.0
     > #
     > etc

        You can absolutely put some text in the header file saying
    that your
        new work is based on the old work, and the original header
    is below.

     > That is, it seem I need to get their agreement.   And then the
     > agreement of anyone else whose authorship/copyright I come
    across?
     > Correct?

        You can re-use the work without having to get the agreement
    of the
        original authors, as long as you're not going to be changing the
        licensing terms at all (ie: you release the final derived
    work as
        Apache 2) *and* you don't modify the fact that the code you are
        incorporating remains copyrighted by the original authors.

        The Apache License grants these rights to those who receive
    a copy of
        the software.

        Happy to help,
        Adam

        --
        Opscode, Inc.
        Adam Jacob, Chief Product Officer
        T: (206) 619-7151 <tel:%28206%29%20619-7151>
    <tel:%28206%29%20619-7151> E: adam@opscode.com
    <mailto:adam@opscode.com>
    <mailto:adam@opscode.com <mailto:adam@opscode.com>>
9

On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 4:30 AM, Tom Thomas tom@opscode.com wrote:

The detail from this discussion has now been added to as two FAQs on How To
Contribute within the Chef Wiki.

nitpicking:

s/ If the original step file is / If the original file is /

Thanks

Thanks,

Tom Thomas | Opscode, Inc.
tom@opscode.com | (c) 206.234.1193 | www.opscode.com

On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Adam Jacob adam@opscode.com wrote:

On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Hedge Hog hedgehogshiatus@gmail.com
wrote:

I've noticed some Chef step files have the opscode copyright and
license header text, some don't.
Given I'm refactoring some/many of these steps, I wonder what should
be carried over in terms of licensing.
To wit. A step gets split into a Cucumber step file and an API file.
The API file contains the logic - often different from the Chef logic
(e.g uses Aruba or custom methods) - sometimes following quite closely
the original logic.
The step description too is sometimes the same, different or just
similar.

So the questions. What do the various Authors and Opscode expect:

  • When the API logic is influenced by Chef's
  • When some of the step regexps are Chef's
  • When the original step file has no license/copyright text

Essentially the issue seems to be that 'portions' of a file have come
from, been influenced by the Opscode/Chef code.

You need to put attribution about the origins of some of the code in
the NOTICE file for your app. On an individual header, you can just
add yourself as an author/copyright holder. If the original step file
is lacking the license header, please let us know, so we can add one.
Even in their absence, they are covered by the Apache 2 license.

Yet it doesn't seem right that I can take the license/copyright text of
say:

Author:: Adam Jacob (adam@opscode.com)

Copyright:: Copyright (c) 2008 Opscode, Inc.

License:: Apache License, Version 2.0

etc

and change it to arbitrarily assert that only portions of the file are
now Authored by Adam Jacob copyright by Opscode.

Portions Authored:: Adam Jacob (adam@opscode.com)

Portions Copyright:: Copyright (c) 2008 Opscode, Inc.

License:: Apache License, Version 2.0

etc

You can absolutely put some text in the header file saying that your
new work is based on the old work, and the original header is below.

That is, it seem I need to get their agreement. And then the
agreement of anyone else whose authorship/copyright I come across?
Correct?

You can re-use the work without having to get the agreement of the
original authors, as long as you're not going to be changing the
licensing terms at all (ie: you release the final derived work as
Apache 2) and you don't modify the fact that the code you are
incorporating remains copyrighted by the original authors.

The Apache License grants these rights to those who receive a copy of
the software.

Happy to help,
Adam

--
Opscode, Inc.
Adam Jacob, Chief Product Officer
T: (206) 619-7151 E: adam@opscode.com

--
πόλλ' οἶδ ἀλώπηξ, ἀλλ' ἐχῖνος ἓν μέγα
[The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing.]
Archilochus, Greek poet (c. 680 BC – c. 645 BC)
http://wiki.hedgehogshiatus.com