Mailing-List: contact esme-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of esjewett@gmail.com designates
 209.85.160.41 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type;
        b=pHmi/IsUwygrpycy48yOvpWYaFkXKruoDbcVyhGB4f/CU5Pth/f7z8k/VvKULotZ2R
         eDdmrPJuVmEMsFlsF8Rb9njih0NVZK0DX20JSZATY0iFtSP9hcP66t9TfZJcwpt9R56d
         WVroNYXNOFlccVC4/4xX9ElwODghiKzuMDngU=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <3d89f1771001121547i2c88e084rc87dc84d7f4305f2@mail.gmail.com>
References: <fa2d9f451001120504j6ee62f2cm7f0857d8433597a5@mail.gmail.com>
	 <3d89f1771001120642o3409113am7898b350c09532fd@mail.gmail.com>
	 <345564.1512.qm@web54402.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
	 <3d89f1771001121320q251ea2canc8d02778ef7d3bd3@mail.gmail.com>
	 <437450.60316.qm@web54410.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
	 <3d89f1771001121335u72544197j5249ea6671e5c074@mail.gmail.com>
	 <461642.13486.qm@web54409.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
	 <3d89f1771001121354u56cde8ccvd92121fd1e4f911c@mail.gmail.com>
	 <284871.56180.qm@web54401.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
	 <3d89f1771001121547i2c88e084rc87dc84d7f4305f2@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 19:37:09 -0500
Message-ID: <68f4a0e81001121637g7c306beblbee4590af4c84ca@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Dealing with copyright issue (See ESME-47)
From: Ethan Jewett <esjewett@gmail.com>
To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 6:47 PM, Gianugo Rabellino
<g.rabellino@sourcesense.com> wrote:

> [...] Although I would
> argue that no one pointed out the scary elephant in the room, that is
> the fact that it is unclear whether David intended to contribute his
> code under the ICLA or under the AL. I'm still wary of signing off a
> release where, at a very least, we have to force our hand and make a
> decision on someone else's IP that while likely being licensed to us
> properly, maybe it's not.

I think it's quite clear that David is licensing his copyright under
the CLA, not under the Apache license. To quote from his resignation
email:

"PS -- My resignation in no way abrogates any rights in the
copywritten materials that I have licensed to the ASF under my CLA"

It's possible that originally David was under the impression that the
CLA license contained exactly the same restrictions as the Apache 2.0
license, which is not the case. However, I think he clarified that for
himself, or more likely meant something entirely different than what
was construed in the original discussion. In this case he's being
painstakingly clear in his wording.

Ethan