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 23:47:02 GMT
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 11:03 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 4:54:14 PM
>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Dealing with copyright issue (See ESME-47)
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 10:44 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>> >> From: Gianugo Rabellino
>> >> 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.
>
> It's not just me, Geir basically told them the same thing on legal-discuss@.

In all honesty, I think the discussion on l-d kind of drifted towards
the current conclusion, with no one pointing out how inconsistent it
is with the actual policy (my bad: I'm currently being held hostage in
a building where I'm not allowed to bring a laptop, so I was unable to
point that out).

>> 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.
>
> Were this a project I was a committer on,  I would probably vote to bite the
> bullet and pull the commits in question as I don't believe people should be
> rewarding for taking a dump on community property.  But this is an incubating
> project trying to get some code out the door, and is free to make its own
> policy-aligned choices.

In addition to your very good point on David getting way more
recognition than others who contributed much more to Apache, I believe
we are not doing ESME a good service by imposing them a baggage they
will have to deal with in the future, when the can of worms of having
inconsistent (c) notices will surface and people will be scared to
touch a single line of notices that are not accurate anymore as source
code evolves yet represent a social/policy/legal minefield. Then
again, it seems it's just me so I'll rest my case. Although I would
argue that no one pointed out the scary elephant in the room, that is
the fact that it is unclear whether David intended to contribute his
code under the ICLA or under the AL. I'm still wary of signing off a
release where, at a very least, we have to force our hand and make a
decision on someone else's IP that while likely being licensed to us
properly, maybe it's not.

-- 
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