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=hx5MQspOUpgPEQammU/788DKRPOcG5MSSujSDXE/+JsuNhiXZuh0oLh6gmS3Nfeg0TjhNMKPt5BAfdWwAW1tLxsf018e9SdllAoJ7lFWzt/wskeH+slTOQN9XOZrr4Ghz5YsgdaKNtgCH10nLeUQaF845IV/b9AfAoCd4Vmim5w=;
Message-ID: <603185.17444.qm@web54407.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
References: <f767f0601001101016x15b8c48fkf0d8053eeeec44d1@mail.gmail.com>
  <c7fc82821001101242k764b3853ga5659396348a11a0@mail.gmail.com>
  <3d89f1771001101419o6d0f00ei2493e7effc7118dd@mail.gmail.com>
  <fa2d9f451001102046q44655ff6qcb4cff3f2dd4b0c3@mail.gmail.com>
  <50.36151.qm@web54401.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
 <f767f0601001102354h247560f9u7e0c13f59cabcff5@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 00:04:12 -0800 (PST)
From: Joe Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Clowns running the show, isn't that nice?
To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
In-Reply-To: <f767f0601001102354h247560f9u7e0c13f59cabcff5@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

----- Original Message ----

> From: Bertrand Delacretaz <bdelacretaz@apache.org>
> To: esme-dev <esme-dev@incubator.apache.org>
> Sent: Mon, January 11, 2010 2:54:48 AM
> Subject: Re: Clowns running the show, isn't that nice?
> 
> Hi Joe,
> 
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 8:15 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> > ...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 see your point, but there might be a legal issue in the way we
> resolve the situation. We might imagine forcibly removing those
> notices (as per policy they should not be there) and David indicated
> that he "legally" disagrees with this, so I'd still like to discuss
> the available options on legal-discuss. Coming up.

The paged reference seems clear as to the available options: either David
complies with policy (unlikely) or all commits he made which could be
considered under that copyright need to be reverted.  Under no circumstances
should anyone other than David remove those copyright notices unless they're
removing his full contributions to the files in question.