incubator-esme-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Anne Kathrine Petter√łe <yoji...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Copyright issue, another vote? (was: [VOTE] Dealing with copyright issue (See ESME-47))
Date Tue, 19 Jan 2010 10:56:45 GMT
Thanks, Bertrand. I also found Bill's suggestion clear and after following the whole discussion
it made most sense to me. I will start another vote.

/Anne


On 19 Jan, 2010, at 11:46 , Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Anne Kathrine Petter√łe
> <yojibee@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ...Should we have another vote with the new text which was suggested on the legal-list
after we started this vote?...
> 
> I think so, if we want to be really clean we need another vote. We
> should have waited a bit more.
> 
>> On 16 Jan, 2010, at 16:42 , Ethan Jewett wrote:
>> 
>>> I'm for the "Portions Copyright..." wording. What I have no idea about
>>> is whether that is a substantial enough change to require another
>>> vote. Mentors?
> 
> IIUC, Bill Rowe's suggestion
> (http://markmail.org/message/q6yweleer2voqvd3) is to
> 
> a) Have the Apache license block at the beginning of each source file
> (i.e. before any additional copyright notices)
> 
> b) Where needed, follow that with the "Portions Copyright 2009
> WorldWide Conferencing, LLC" notice. That would be in files where the
> WorldWide Conferencing notice currently exists, except any files where
> user dpp has not made any contributions (don't know if there are any).
> 
> c) Not add any mentions of this in the NOTICE file.
> 
> The rationale for c), as I understand it, is that the NOTICE file must
> contain a minimum as downstream redistributions are required to keep
> it intact. With b), we're clean w.r.t. David Pollak's refusal to
> remove those notices, so I agree with c).
> 
> My suggestion would be to re-vote on a) b) c) above, including the
> Incubator PMC right from the start of that vote.
> 
> Re-voting might sound a bit silly, but the whole thing is anyway...my
> angle is that we want to solve this issue very cleanly so as to be
> able to completely forget about it as soon as possible. So leave no
> stone unturned right now, and get on with *useful work*.
> 
> -Bertrand


Mime
View raw message