esme-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
Date Wed, 20 Jan 2010 22:08:18 GMT
----- Original Message ----

> From: Robert Burrell Donkin <robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com>
> To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Wed, January 20, 2010 5:03:12 PM
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
> 
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 9:46 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> > ----- Original Message ----
> >
> >> From: Robert Burrell Donkin 
> >> To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> Sent: Wed, January 20, 2010 4:35:25 PM
> >> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 8:47 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> >> > ----- Original Message ----
> >> >
> >> >> From: Robert Burrell Donkin
> >> >> To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> >> Sent: Wed, January 20, 2010 3:00:33 PM
> >> >> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
> >> >>
> >> >> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 7:59 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> > On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 7:11 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 1:59 AM, Ralph Goers
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >>> ...I suggest you review the thread that was provided and
then see if 
> you
> >> >> want to reconsider your veto....
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> As this vote is not about a technical issue, I don't think
there are
> >> >> >> vetos - we should have explicitely specified that this is
a majority
> >> >> >> vote.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Robert and Gianugo, did you mean to veto this with your -1s,
or just
> >> >> >> express your disagreement with the majority?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > i consider making claims about third party copyright ownership
rather
> >> >> > than a statement of fact is positively dangerous from a legal
> >> >> > perspective
> >> >> >
> >> >> > so, it's a legal team veto until i have chance to review (my exam
is
> >> >> > tomorrow morning so i should be able to find some time in the
> >> >> > afternoon)
> >> >> >
> >> >> > if anyone objects or feels that i am wrong then please raise on
the
> >> >> > legal lists. if sam ruby or a majority of the legal team folks
feel
> >> >> > that i'm wrong then i'm happy to be outvoted.
> >> >>
> >> >> BTW Eben Moglen has an excellent article on how to do this right
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Here you've gone completely batshit, as I'm quite certain Eben Moglen has
> >> > never written about this precise issue.
> >>
> >> yes, i'm also sure that Eben Moglen has never written on the matter of
> >> whether Esme is right in using that particular phrase
> >>
> >> he has written on the subject of the right way to include a copyright
> >> notice in a derivative work under a different collective copyright and
> >> license as illustrated by a bsd->gpl example. (when i have time i'll
> >> dig out the link but you'll find it if you google.)
> >
> > As I'm fairly certain you learned about that article's existence from me
> > regarding Thrift lacking ICLAs, I won't bother digging it up and rereading
> > it because I'm 100% certain it has nothing to do with the situation at hand.
> >
> > This is not about derivative works, third party licensing, or collective
> > copyright.  It's about work contributed to Apache under an ICLA littered
> > with onerous copyright notices in the source.  The project would very much
> > like to dispense with this issue by someone who is not the copyright holder
> > (since *that* committer resigned over this issue), moving the notices to a 
> single
> > line in the NOTICE file.  They are currently blocked from doing that because
> > the legal team's policy doesn't cover that act.  Fix that and everyone goes
> > away happy.
> >
> > What that will entail is some attorney presenting to the legal team an
> > assessment of the legal risks the org assumes by writing that into the policy.
> > Once it has been explained, the legal team can vote to accept the risk
> > and adopt the policy.  It will take lots of time and energy, and since you
> > are so concerned about the wrong thing taking place in the interim, perhaps
> > you can be the one to champion this issue for the project while they wait
> > for you to carry out what the rest of the legal team seems relatively
> > unconcerned about.
> 
> the copyright notices in the file are factually incorrect. this should
> be addressed. 

How so? Nobody's touched them except for the committer who put them there.

> Eben Moglen's article gives advice on the right way to
> deal with this. the rest is politics and i don't have the cycles for
> that ATM.

Not by a long shot, because his article deals with the case of mixed open source
licenses.  The agreement here is the CLA, not the Apache License or some other
open source license.

> the rest is politics and i don't have the cycles for that ATM.

Well since I've answered your issues, I'd like to ask that you retract your veto.,


      

Mime
View raw message