esme-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gianugo Rabellino <g.rabell...@sourcesense.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Dealing with copyright issue (See ESME-47)
Date Tue, 12 Jan 2010 21:54:14 GMT
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 10:44 PM, Joe Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> From: Gianugo Rabellino <g.rabellino@sourcesense.com>
>> To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Sent: Tue, January 12, 2010 4:35:44 PM
>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Dealing with copyright issue (See ESME-47)
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 10:31 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>> > ----- Original Message ----
>> >
>> >> From: Gianugo Rabellino
>> >> To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> >> Sent: Tue, January 12, 2010 4:20:14 PM
>> >> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Dealing with copyright issue (See ESME-47)
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 4:23 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>> >> > I'm hoping another lengthy diatribe from you won't be
>> >> > necessary.  While I don't blame you for David's disappearance,
>> >> > the reason we bother to document policy is so people don't
>> >> > need to get creative with their legal understanding of how the ASF
works.
>> >> > In the future should this issue ever present itself to you,
>> >> > I hope you will do the proper thing and point the errant person
>> >> > at the relevant ASF policy
>> >>
>> >> That would be the same policy that says we _must_ remove copyright
>> >> notices from source files, right?
>> >
>> > Technically it says the copyright holder must do that, not the ASF.
>>
>> Oh, please - let's not go there. The fact that the policy misses a (4)
>> remove the file in question still doesn't mean the "must" is
>> irrelevant. That would be playing with words.
>
> The policy isn't lacking that.  The issue is simple- how to treat commits
> that are licensed to us properly but fail to follow policy?  The answer
> is simple, either the committer modifies those commits to comply with policy
> or his commit access will be revoked and the committed code will be subject
> to third-party treatment.  In this case the project has elected to be slightly
> more accurate with the situation, but they have done no harm to the org
> nor the committer in question by doing so.

There would be a lot to comment on you interpolating the policy text,
for a start. Maybe it's just better we all forget about this mishap,
otherwise we are going to spend the next few days arguing about the
wording of a policy that, to me, is now just a simple guideline. I
guess I'll just sit here, hoping the day will never come where I will
have to pull a told-you-so.

-- 
Gianugo Rabellino
M: +44 779 5364 932 / +39 389 44 26 846
Sourcesense - making sense of Open Source: http://www.sourcesense.com

Mime
View raw message