Mailing-List: contact esme-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
  h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type;
  b=56mA2ENc8M59S1PlIFDa/Kj62uj9cjEAm/fDjfODmbdmPnqxxS9APCCVSBtpeofU3gFMb81eos0/efDxOGns4dv3NxpJCGOP2UmsVRINTTmAr4BX00tKMCVrWKSIgaid2dyfcIh522jBXxXKmFVka90ETKrT9VCRFqtPqe/NyJM=;
Message-ID: <437450.60316.qm@web54410.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
References: <fa2d9f451001120504j6ee62f2cm7f0857d8433597a5@mail.gmail.com>
  <f767f0601001120515q66478586i6ec555872135dd2f@mail.gmail.com>
  <f767f0601001120556g6dbc25bbo3d3f2a4a93e13427@mail.gmail.com>
  <3d89f1771001120642o3409113am7898b350c09532fd@mail.gmail.com>
  <345564.1512.qm@web54402.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
 <3d89f1771001121320q251ea2canc8d02778ef7d3bd3@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 13:31:25 -0800 (PST)
From: Joe Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Dealing with copyright issue (See ESME-47)
To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
In-Reply-To: <3d89f1771001121320q251ea2canc8d02778ef7d3bd3@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

----- Original Message ----

> From: Gianugo Rabellino <g.rabellino@sourcesense.com>
> To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Tue, January 12, 2010 4:20:14 PM
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Dealing with copyright issue (See ESME-47)
> 
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 4:23 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> > I'm hoping another lengthy diatribe from you won't be
> > necessary.  While I don't blame you for David's disappearance,
> > the reason we bother to document policy is so people don't
> > need to get creative with their legal understanding of how the ASF works.
> > In the future should this issue ever present itself to you,
> > I hope you will do the proper thing and point the errant person
> > at the relevant ASF policy
> 
> That would be the same policy that says we _must_ remove copyright
> notices from source files, right?

Technically it says the copyright holder must do that, not the ASF.
I personally don't believe there are any statutory issues with moving
the copyright notice to NOTICE, and am certain it's not a tort to do that.
But the policy in question doesn't cover that act.  If you'd like it
to cover that, this is the wrong list for that conversation.

> The same policy that is now being
> discarded in light of a compromise that makes very little sense and
> sets a dangerous precedent?

It is neither a compromise nor a precedent.  It is a decision
in line with ASF policy and made by the project (and apparently
supported by members of the IPMC).

> No, I guess I have very little to add. But don't ask for my +1.

Trust me I wasn't.