incubator-esme-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Burrell Donkin <robertburrelldon...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
Date Wed, 20 Jan 2010 22:15:11 GMT
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 10:08 PM, Joe Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----
>
>> From: Robert Burrell Donkin <robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com>
>> To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Sent: Wed, January 20, 2010 5:03:12 PM
>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 9:46 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>> > ----- Original Message ----
>> >
>> >> From: Robert Burrell Donkin
>> >> 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.
>>
>> the copyright notices in the file are factually incorrect. this should
>> be addressed.
>
> How so? Nobody's touched them except for the committer who put them there.
>
>> Eben Moglen's article gives advice on the right way to
>> deal with this. the rest is politics and i don't have the cycles for
>> that ATM.
>
> Not by a long shot, because his article deals with the case of mixed open source
> licenses.

he deals with the problem of factually accurate statements about
copyright as part of his treatment of that subject

> The agreement here is the CLA, not the Apache License or some other
> open source license.

my point has nothing to do with that: my point is that the statement
is not correct and moreover is dangerous

>> the rest is politics and i don't have the cycles for that ATM.
>
> Well since I've answered your issues, I'd like to ask that you retract your veto.,

my veto is valid since you missed entirely my point and have failed to
address it

- robert

Mime
View raw message