Mailing-List: contact esme-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
  h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type;
  b=0yUxKuUTanD/ZNwOrLuVx1wyfwlS5KP2gYHXf6bDnlls4hUGTUYCICLr/Hnvpnm6zw4ufMfZP5emaBoHZzs5ANFbj6VJZshjLKIeOQLTHptAP2ZLEq5tCV16prwFcViJ7KA0hGuSkUDnCHmsxT+u4Lv21gjcR2l9xdBhy7ifOBA=;
Message-ID: <542475.20992.qm@web54410.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
References: <4464798E-839C-40B3-8267-0A63732A0592@gmail.com>
  <f470f68e1001190851p662667a1y681c7b4dcb1f994c@mail.gmail.com>
  <11537819-3D20-4187-8BF8-436A28558903@dslextreme.com>
  <f767f0601001192311h20bdaa89q7d54be48285a837@mail.gmail.com>
  <f470f68e1001201159p3f65df78v27010a77f1733eef@mail.gmail.com>
 <f470f68e1001201200o19b8d816ne7d05b9f772e114a@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 12:47:04 -0800 (PST)
From: Joe Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
In-Reply-To: <f470f68e1001201200o19b8d816ne7d05b9f772e114a@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

----- Original Message ----

> From: Robert Burrell Donkin <robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com>
> 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.

Grow up Robert. It's the legal team's policy that is being exploited by 
a committer who knows what is written down.  Fix the damned policy so
it actually supports rational behavior by project members and ALL my
complaints, as well as Gianugo's complaints, disappear.