esme-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bertrand Delacretaz <>
Subject Copyright issue, another vote? (was: [VOTE] Dealing with copyright issue (See ESME-47))
Date Tue, 19 Jan 2010 10:46:31 GMT

On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Anne Kathrine Petter√łe
<> wrote:
> ...Should we have another vote with the new text which was suggested on the legal-list
after we started this vote?...

I think so, if we want to be really clean we need another vote. We
should have waited a bit more.

> 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?

IIUC, Bill Rowe's suggestion
( is to

a) Have the Apache license block at the beginning of each source file
(i.e. before any additional copyright notices)

b) Where needed, follow that with the "Portions Copyright 2009
WorldWide Conferencing, LLC" notice. That would be in files where the
WorldWide Conferencing notice currently exists, except any files where
user dpp has not made any contributions (don't know if there are any).

c) Not add any mentions of this in the NOTICE file.

The rationale for c), as I understand it, is that the NOTICE file must
contain a minimum as downstream redistributions are required to keep
it intact. With b), we're clean w.r.t. David Pollak's refusal to
remove those notices, so I agree with c).

My suggestion would be to re-vote on a) b) c) above, including the
Incubator PMC right from the start of that vote.

Re-voting might sound a bit silly, but the whole thing is
angle is that we want to solve this issue very cleanly so as to be
able to completely forget about it as soon as possible. So leave no
stone unturned right now, and get on with *useful work*.


View raw message