esme-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ethan Jewett <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Dealing with copyright issue (See ESME-47)
Date Sat, 16 Jan 2010 15:42:16 GMT
I'm for the "Portions Copyright..." wording. What I have no idea about
is whether that is a substantial enough change to require another
vote. Mentors?


On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 5:16 AM, Richard Hirsch <> wrote:
> Vote results after 3+ days:
> ESME PPMC +1: 6
> IMPC +1: 3
> IMPC -1: 1
> There has been further discussion / clairification on this issue on
> the legal-discuss mailing list since this vote was initiated.  In
> particular, the post from William A. Rowe Jr. on Jan 13 and from Henri
> Yandell yesterday. I'm unsure whether the suggestions in these two
> posts have an impact on the changes that we are considering.
> In particular the suggestion of
> /*
>  * Portions Copyright 2009 WorldWide Conferencing, LLC
>  */
> rather than
>  "Copyright 2008-2009 WorldWide Conferencing, LLC (under David Pollak's CLA)"
> which was the basis for this vote.
> D.
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 7:57 PM, Joe Schaefer <> wrote:
>> ----- Original Message ----
>>> From: Erik Engbrecht <>
>>> To:
>>> Sent: Tue, January 12, 2010 10:40:43 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Dealing with copyright issue (See ESME-47)
>> [... snip stuff I've addressed separately ...]
>>> There is no question that many of David's principles are the anathema of
>>> ASF's principles.  That has been clear for a shockingly long time.  But my
>>> understanding is that legally there is no dispute.  If the community is
>>> going to put ASF principles aside in order to keep the code, then it should
>>> just do it.  Weaving principles into the discussion just introduces
>>> ambiguity, prevents closure, and ultimately hampers the a developing
>>> community's growth.  This, I believe is what the leaders of the ESME
>>> community just voted to do.
>>> Or the community can bite the bullet, stand by ASF principles even though it
>>> appears to be legally unnecessary, and yank David's code.
>> Looking over the original ESME proposal, one of the core reasons it was
>> proffered to the ASF was to take advantage of the ASF's community-building
>> experience.  A good part of how we build communities here is to establish
>> core values that most Apache projects share, and that people outside of the
>> committer community can easily recognize and elect to be a part of.
>> Amongst those values is the notion of equitable and fair treatment of all
>> contributors to a project, be they PMC members, committers, or more outside
>> participants.  To be sure, meritocratic governance involves certain people
>> expressing greater and lesser control over areas of the project where overall
>> proficiency is mixed.  But in the end people express themselves on open forums,
>> largely using their vote, where *anyone* can constructively criticise their words,
>> and where noone is barred from participation other than those who act to poison
>> the commmunity.  (I don't mean to suggest David is in the latter category here.)
>> "Putting ASF principles aside" to me implies this community still has a
>> number of lessons to learn about building an open ASF-style community.
>> I personally don't view the current VOTE in that light- I think people
>> are trying to do what is best, at least in the short term, for the project.
>> Balancing the long-term interests of the project (and the org) is a more
>> challenging question, and I see Gianugo's concerns here more along those lines.
>> Trying to rationally address all relevant concerns is another important aspect
>> of Apache-style decision making, but I think we've talked long enough on this
>> VOTE thread.

View raw message