incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject Re: Too many licenses? Was: [vote] Accept Glasgow
Date Tue, 08 Aug 2006 06:26:40 GMT
Carl Trieloff wrote:
> 
> William,
> 
> I have made some edits to the wiki on the Mechanisms for feedback
> section to clean up the language, based on some of the misunderstanding 
> and to reflect the discussion from the list onto the wiki. Tried to keep
> it short, but can edit more in if required.

Although the objectionable language still appears on the spec parties' web
sites, and I still consider it an abuse of the phrase "In the same spirit
of an Apache-style process" until the rest of the language changes...
I have one last suggestion on your choice of words...

>From the proposal, "On such acceptance the employer is required to sign an
agreement to make sure that employer also grants the ongoing and consistent
licenses to the work as posted in specifications."

could be more simply put "On such acceptance, the employer must also sign
the [RLA? ] agreement [or is this Specifications Party Contract?] to ensure
that all necessary licenses are clearly granted." - which makes perfect sense.

I still find two points in the RLA (which, w.r.t. employment *wasn't* at all
objectionable(!) and entirely contributor-focused, individual or corporate)
to be odd;

"for the purpose of developing and promoting the Specification and in connection
with any product that implements and complies with the Specification"

which is a bit too fuzzy for many to agree too (usually it would be constrained
to "necessary to implement the proposed Feedback to the Specification" or some
similarly narrow language - but if this works for all involved), and...

"information shall be considered “Confidential Information” when, [...] (ii)
non-tangible disclosures are identified as confidential prior to disclosure and
reduced to writing, marked as provided above, and delivered to the receiving
party within thirty (30) days of the original date of disclosure."

which from a mailing-list centered activity is entirely a cat out of the bag
scenario.  It's important that the project understand that the infra team
has a -strict- policy about not redacting project mailing list history for
any purpose whatsoever.

I am confident that at least three of the initial committers are clear
in their company hat / project hat deliniation and that any confusion
about this, in practice, will be cleared up in the project pre-committee.

Last and final objection, I want to make sure I am not missing something...
the contract between the spec participants is or is not public?  If public,
was there a link I missed?  If so, can it be added to the proposal for
completeness sake?

Bill

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message