Mailing-List: contact esme-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy)
From: Daniel Kulp <dkulp@apache.org>
To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 10:45:54 -0500
User-Agent: KMail/1.12.4 (Linux/2.6.32-gentoo; KDE/4.3.4; x86_64; ; )
Cc: Anne Kathrine =?iso-8859-1?q?Petter=F8e?= <yojibee@gmail.com>
References: <4464798E-839C-40B3-8267-0A63732A0592@gmail.com>
 <f767f0601001220118r20f45c2dh5340ff76c1c1a9f2@mail.gmail.com>
 <A8803012-8ECF-4C37-8DCA-180E90606FAF@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <A8803012-8ECF-4C37-8DCA-180E90606FAF@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <201001221045.55055.dkulp@apache.org>

On Fri January 22 2010 5:05:47 am Anne Kathrine Petter=F8e wrote:
> Bertrand,
>=20
> To be honest it is difficult to work under such circumstances.
> I am not sure we will get anything done until this issue is resolved.
>=20
> /Anne

Anne,

I know this is a very difficult situation, but I hope you realize that this=
 is=20
actually one of the main advantages of Apache over most of the other "forge=
s"=20
and such that are out there.    One thing Apache tries its best to do is to=
=20
make sure everything is squeaky clean from a legal perspective so that user=
s=20
of Apache software can use the software with some level of confidence in it=
's=20
legal status.   To accomplish that, every once in a while, we need to suffe=
r=20
through some of these situations to make sure everything is OK.   With many=
 of=20
the other communities, they don't have the legal council available to help=
=20
figure out what the proper solutions are to problems like these and the fin=
al=20
result may or may not be "legal" and could cause long term issues for the=20
project. =20

In the end, I hope the companies that are using ESME will be happy that thi=
s=20
has been resolved satisfactory and they can once again be confident in the=
=20
legal status of ESME.

Dan


>=20
> On 22 Jan, 2010, at 10:18 , Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 10:11 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin
> >
> > <robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> i've had time to take a brief look at the mailing lists and IMHO this
> >> matter needs to be taken private (and i started the balls rolling for
> >> that). i will issue a formal veto with both IPMC and legal hats on in
> >> due course. i just wanted to know that i'm going to unsubscribe this
> >> email address from these lists until this matter has been sorted out..=
=2E.
> >
> > So you were not here when we discussed this, now you jump in, say it's
> > all wrong, and say you're going to discuss it behind the curtain?
> >
> > Not fun at all.
> >
> > And I'm not copying you on this reply, if you're not here anymore
> > that's too bad.
> >
> > ESME folks, hope you're able to continue working without being too
> > much disturbed by this, based on the recent discussions here and
> > especially on legal-discuss I think Robert is blowing this way out of
> > proportion.
> >
> > I'll let you know when we're back from fight club ;-)
> >
> > -Bertrand
>=20

=2D-=20
Daniel Kulp
dkulp@apache.org
http://www.dankulp.com/blog