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: domain of robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.218.217 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=voXlCS8toFRERg7TBUJ43tDcMGYHSjiHTHchX1Tim1J5n9a1KAspcs0QxiUku49/iR
         yPybYdXkmrRZ68uFl4/k0LeyROkvZ6rDea/HU3/raXfSXtR2DM2l47naZO3RPhggP0B4
         3T8Ou7roRYlk/RN4wKCS/TrYB/wMi7+Dzk3Bc=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <f470f68e1001201159p3f65df78v27010a77f1733eef@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4464798E-839C-40B3-8267-0A63732A0592@gmail.com>
	 <f470f68e1001190851p662667a1y681c7b4dcb1f994c@mail.gmail.com>
	 <11537819-3D20-4187-8BF8-436A28558903@dslextreme.com>
	 <f767f0601001192311h20bdaa89q7d54be48285a837@mail.gmail.com>
	 <f470f68e1001201159p3f65df78v27010a77f1733eef@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 20:00:33 +0000
Message-ID: <f470f68e1001201200o19b8d816ne7d05b9f772e114a@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
From: Robert Burrell Donkin <robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com>
To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 7:59 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
<robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 7:11 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> <bdelacretaz@apache.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 1:59 AM, Ralph Goers <ralph.goers@dslextreme.com> 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

- robert