esme-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ethan Jewett <esjew...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
Date Wed, 20 Jan 2010 22:35:09 GMT
Robert, can you please clarify your concerns:

1. You have stated that the suggested copyright statement is factually
incorrect. I do not see how that is that case, as portions of the
files *are* copyright as described.

2. You are stating that having the notice in the file is dangerous. How?

Given the extensive prior discussion of this issue and the appearance
of a consensus on both this list and the legal-discuss list, I think
you owe this project a more thorough explanation along with your veto.

Thanks,
Ethan


On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 5:15 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
<robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 10:08 PM, Joe Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> ----- 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.
>
> he deals with the problem of factually accurate statements about
> copyright as part of his treatment of that subject
>
>> The agreement here is the CLA, not the Apache License or some other
>> open source license.
>
> my point has nothing to do with that: my point is that the statement
> is not correct and moreover is dangerous
>
>>> 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.,
>
> my veto is valid since you missed entirely my point and have failed to
> address it
>
> - robert
>

Mime
View raw message