esme-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Anne Kathrine Petter√łe <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Dealing with copyright issue (See ESME-47)
Date Tue, 19 Jan 2010 10:27:46 GMT
Any mentors out there?
What's next?
Should we have another vote with the new text which was suggested on the legal-list after
we started this vote?


On 16 Jan, 2010, at 16:42 , Ethan Jewett wrote:

> 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?
> Ethan
> 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
>>>> 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