Return-Path: 
 <esme-dev-return-2708-apmail-incubator-esme-dev-archive=incubator.apache.org@incubator.apache.org>
Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-esme-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org
Received: (qmail 37558 invoked from network); 19 Jan 2010 16:52:07 -0000
Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3)
  by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 19 Jan 2010 16:52:07 -0000
Received: (qmail 32878 invoked by uid 500); 19 Jan 2010 16:52:06 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-esme-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org
Received: (qmail 32802 invoked by uid 500); 19 Jan 2010 16:52:06 -0000
Mailing-List: contact esme-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:esme-dev-help@incubator.apache.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:esme-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:esme-dev@incubator.apache.org>
List-Id: <esme-dev.incubator.apache.org>
Reply-To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
Delivered-To: mailing list esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received: (qmail 32431 invoked by uid 99); 19 Jan 2010 16:52:05 -0000
Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 19 Jan 2010 16:52:05 +0000
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0
	tests=SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.218.226 as permitted sender)
Received: from [209.85.218.226] (HELO mail-bw0-f226.google.com)
 (209.85.218.226)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 19 Jan 2010 16:51:59 +0000
Received: by bwz26 with SMTP id 26so2918518bwz.27
        for <multiple recipients>; Tue, 19 Jan 2010 08:51:37 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references
         :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type
         :content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=k8XMHeqI76Ba0i0e8GorWxjCeXouLbtePe2qV18Ehg4=;
        b=UDuKfWtB35zsw5QXCLIk3UVSKkMvpoe0PzxR128bqj/c5N1h6V5Dk/Qp/UjaUlAGBZ
         OTyS3AIl+f+6DbqOqaZ3AFJ+rzIGdLnaMn0w5BgBiH34oEewXfOTn+iuD4UGArRznk3K
         bfqmvpsAP66UqLwZfrIoVtUuOaxiR/jPC70/8=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=nlIQN1uQyGQoSkncK9CJy6w6ZIbe20a8AGq2GPo32ocg57MZlo8ckA6Jbz4ZYQZ7TE
         2kBHyWjMt1aHfKXqWxDLId4pCcRTcYAwM6XyKzo6F7xXfs9nYZ1hTrHQ+gaJfDzM3ZEE
         PS5lxRPL7PNiaFFnc570aXhSjayiCiilJOANU=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.204.155.76 with SMTP id r12mr3997815bkw.175.1263919897723;
	Tue, 19 Jan 2010 08:51:37 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <4464798E-839C-40B3-8267-0A63732A0592@gmail.com>
References: <4464798E-839C-40B3-8267-0A63732A0592@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 16:51:37 +0000
Message-ID: <f470f68e1001190851p662667a1y681c7b4dcb1f994c@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
From: Robert Burrell Donkin <robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com>
To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
Cc: general@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Anne Kathrine Petter=F8e
<yojibee@gmail.com> wrote:
> PPMC and IPMC, please re-vote on the following regarding copyright issue =
ESME-47.

<snip>

> 2. The Apache License block will be followed by a legacy comment (Only in=
 files where the WorldWide Conferencing notice currently exists, except any=
 files where user dpp has not made any contribution):
> /* * Portions Copyright 2009 WorldWide Conferencing, LLC */

<ipmc-hat><legal-hat><ianal>

if this language has not been cleared with our lawyers on legal-private the=
n :

* i'm -1 on this phrasing
* please raise a legal JIRA for appropriate language

</ianal></legal-hat></ipmc-hat>

the reason for this veto is that i believe that this phrasing is

1. potentially untrue

for example, if at some future time someone decides to revert all the
relevant commits - or in time the code is so extensively revised then
no portions of the code will be subject to that copyright and the
statement will be untrue.

2. potentially dangerous

for example it could be read as a claim rather than a statement


AIUI (please jump in if i'm wrong) some source files was derived from
originals that contained the notice "Copyright 2009 WorldWide
Conferencing, LLC". something along the lines below seems to me more
truthful:

/*
* This document was derived from an original containing the following
copyright notice:
*
*     Copyright 2009 WorldWide Conferencing, LLC
*
*/

but IMO this is a job for a lawyer

- robert