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: Clowns running the show, isn't that nice?
Date Mon, 11 Jan 2010 07:15:57 GMT
----- Original Message ----

> From: Richard Hirsch <hirsch.dick@gmail.com>
> To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Sun, January 10, 2010 11:46:51 PM
> Subject: Re: Clowns running the show, isn't that nice?
> 
> Why don't we wait and see what suggestions surface on the
> legal-discuss list before we continue this debate on the esme mailing
> lists? Without their legal advice, it is impossible to achieve clarity
> or an agreement on our options.

The situation that ESME is faced with is cut-and-dry, and is
documented here:

http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#header-existingcopyright

The fact is that David violated that particular ASF policy when he
committed those copyright notices, and the mentors are correct that
this will block an ESME release.  There is no need to involve legal-discuss
as this is a policy question, not a legal issue.

> 
> I also agree that is critical to deal with this issue - however, a
> flamewar here and on Twitter isn't going to help anyone.
> 
> D.
> 
> On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 11:19 PM, Gianugo Rabellino
> wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 9:42 PM, Vassil Dichev wrote:
> >> This time, though, I think a certain mentor's reply was more
> >> inflammatory and the options suggested were disappointing.
> >
> > OK - I'll try and start by being more accommodating: can you please
> > enlighten me on the other possible options? To me either we (the ASF)
> > have been licensed copyright on the ESME codebase, or we are not. In
> > the former, there is an ESME project. In the latter, there is nothing,
> > nada, zilch. As a mentor, I cannot possibly let statement such as
> > David's go unanswered - it needs to be crystal clear how things work.
> > And I would actually urge you to have a look at the point where I
> > jumped into the discussion, to be amazed at how accommodating and
> > willing to talk David was.
> >
> >> ESME could
> >> go on without David. But David's initial code contribution and design
> >> is in the heart of ESME so much so that it's inseparable. Removing
> >> David's contribution would mean starting from scratch.
> >
> > You are getting it wrong. There is no such thing as "David's
> > contribution" in Apache project terms, the moment David decides that
> > he didn't license his copyright to the ASF. It's code that landed here
> > by mistake, full stop.
> >
> >> So I was
> >> surprised that a mentor would suggest that splitting ESME right before
> >> the release is a better course of action than an educated discussion.
> >
> > I'm all for discussing, but I stand by my words: *if* David's code is
> > not licensed to the ASF as per the CLA and general Apache procedures
> > demand, then there is nothing the ASF can release. And may I point out
> > that it wasn't me (yet) resigning from the project?
> >
> >> I'd also say that my message is no more sneaky than Gianugo's email to
> >> the private list. My Twitter timeline is public and I know Bertrand is
> >> following me. By contrast, at the time of Gianugo's reply I wasn't on
> >> the private list.
> >
> > Oh, give me a break now. I wrote to the private list as this is about
> > a potentially sensitive legal and personal issue - as such, the
> > private list was a good candidate for discussion although I concede
> > that it works here as well. But calling my message sneaky because you
> > didn't do your freakin' homework as a committer by subscribing to all
> > the project lists is laughable.
> >
> >> I do not believe the ESME team needs special handholding to improve
> >> and evolve the project.
> >
> > Allow me to disagree. After a year, I am faced with core committers
> > who didn't bother read what they signed and understand the basis of
> > how the apache legal side works. Or even arguing that a major legal
> > issue is shouldn't get in the way of a release. That means a lot of
> > need for handholding. It actually means going back to ASF-101.
> >
> >> I think we have proven this during the course
> >> of the last year. There are regular commits and discussions, this
> >> means our motivation is strong enough. But I believe there are other
> >> things to try first before suggesting blocking the release and
> >> removing the project founder's code.
> >
> > Again, I'm all ears and I would love to hear alternatives. But please
> > consider I am not the one calling names and going away taking the ball
> > with me. All I'm saying is that if this issue isn't resolved for the
> > better, some code will have to go. And it would be completely
> > irresponsible to the verge of being insane to ever start considering
> > for a single moment that a release is even remotely possible given the
> > current state of affairs. You are building on sand.
> >
> > --
> > Gianugo Rabellino
> > M: +44 779 5364 932 / +39 389 44 26 846
> > Sourcesense - making sense of Open Source: http://www.sourcesense.com
> >



      

Mime
View raw message