incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: How documentation != code, and how to "do" policy (was: Re: Publishing api docs for Subversion)
Date Tue, 08 Dec 2009 13:51:50 GMT
----- Original Message ----

> From: Niclas Hedhman <niclas@hedhman.org>
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Tue, December 8, 2009 1:03:51 AM
> Subject: Re: How documentation != code, and how to "do" policy (was: Re:  Publishing
api docs for Subversion)
> 
> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 1:37 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> > There's also a world of difference between worldwide distribution
> > and distribution to a self-selected subgroup.
> 
> You are right that it is a big "IMHO" of everything here, but
> "self-selected subgroup" is not a legal term in copyrighted material
> either. So, no clue of who has no clue ;-)
> Either it is available to the public or it is not. And as I mentioned,
> in EU people at your work place are "public" and not "private", vs
> friends are "private". Now that definition probably differs in
> different jurisdictions, so if you have credential requirements then
> you are in a different, more 'at work'-like situation. The fact that
> "anyone can download" makes it "public" no matter how you look at it.
> 

You keep bringing up this point as if it were somehow relevant to the
discussion.  Noone is disputing that these are public works, what is 
being disputed is the nature of the work and the scope of the distribution.

> "Liability considerations", not sure what you are trying to hint, or
> whether you just try to toss me off the track... It is easy to be
> vague and sound educated.

Well do a little looking into how the RIA is prosecuting copyright offenses
and you'll see that "damages" are assessed according to the number of
offenses.  That is a liability consideration- courts will laugh at the RIA
for attempting to prosecute file-sharers with relatively few known distributions
of copyrighted material.  And that distinction is the main point the ASF is
trying to establish with dev-only distributions vs. world-wide distributions
(aka releases), ideally that an aggrieved copyright holder's redress would be
limited to pulling the offending material in the case of a dev-only distribution.
Is this a court-tested principle? Of course not, but that doesn't make the concept
or its pursuit invalid.


      

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


Mime
View raw message