Are the binaries copyrighted by Microsoft Corporation or .NET Foundation?

[KalleOlaviNiemitalo]

In the v4.1.1 source tree:

• LICENSE.txt says "Copyright (c) .NET Foundation and Contributors"
• *.cs files say "Copyright (c) .NET Foundation. All rights reserved."

In v4.1.1 binaries:

• In *.dll files, the version resource has LegalCopyright "© Microsoft Corporation All rights reserved."
• In *.nupkg files, embedded *.nuspec files have <copyright>© Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.</copyright>.

Is this difference by design? Related to #1 and #122.

(I was thinking this might affect what copyright notices I have to preserve when I distribute the binaries with my applications. However, after rereading subsections 4.(c) and 4.(d) of the Apache-2.0 license, I'm not sure it matters at all. There is no "NOTICE" text file in the source tree or in the NuGet packages.)

[Tratcher]

@Pilchie ?

[Pilchie]

@ChrisSfanos

[ChrisSfanos]

Katana is definitely a .NET Foundation project, so everything should reflect Copyright .NET Foundation ...

[Tratcher]

Ok, we'll look at this for the next release. Note we don't have one scheduled yet.

[Tratcher]

@ChrisSfanos looking at this again, katana's current behavior matches that of packages from aspnetcore and runtime. Packages and dlls are both copyright Microsoft Corporation.

https://www.fuget.org/packages/Microsoft.AspNetCore.Http.Features/6.0.0-preview.3.21201.13
https://www.fuget.org/packages/System.Diagnostics.DiagnosticSource/6.0.0-preview.3.21201.4

Can this be closed?

[ChrisSfanos]

Closing the loop - this package needs a NOTICE file with attribution to the. NET Foundation. That will close the requirement.

[KalleOlaviNiemitalo]

@ChrisSfanos, when you write "the requirement", do you refer to a clause of the Apache-2.0 license, to a .NET Foundation policy, or to a Microsoft policy?