incubator-esme-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
Date Wed, 20 Jan 2010 21:46:58 GMT
----- Original Message ----

> From: Robert Burrell Donkin <robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com>
> To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Wed, January 20, 2010 4:35:25 PM
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
> 
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 8:47 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> > ----- Original Message ----
> >
> >> From: Robert Burrell Donkin 
> >> 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.
> 
> yes, i'm also sure that Eben Moglen has never written on the matter of
> whether Esme is right in using that particular phrase
> 
> he has written on the subject of the right way to include a copyright
> notice in a derivative work under a different collective copyright and
> license as illustrated by a bsd->gpl example. (when i have time i'll
> dig out the link but you'll find it if you google.)

As I'm fairly certain you learned about that article's existence from me
regarding Thrift lacking ICLAs, I won't bother digging it up and rereading
it because I'm 100% certain it has nothing to do with the situation at hand.

This is not about derivative works, third party licensing, or collective
copyright.  It's about work contributed to Apache under an ICLA littered
with onerous copyright notices in the source.  The project would very much
like to dispense with this issue by someone who is not the copyright holder
(since *that* committer resigned over this issue), moving the notices to a single
line in the NOTICE file.  They are currently blocked from doing that because
the legal team's policy doesn't cover that act.  Fix that and everyone goes
away happy.

What that will entail is some attorney presenting to the legal team an
assessment of the legal risks the org assumes by writing that into the policy.
Once it has been explained, the legal team can vote to accept the risk
and adopt the policy.  It will take lots of time and energy, and since you
are so concerned about the wrong thing taking place in the interim, perhaps
you can be the one to champion this issue for the project while they wait
for you to carry out what the rest of the legal team seems relatively
unconcerned about.



> 
> - robert



      

Mime
View raw message