incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Burrell Donkin <robertburrelldon...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [legal] How to clarify, if usage of Boost C++ source libraries is allowed
Date Fri, 14 Oct 2011 14:17:43 GMT
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org> wrote:

<snip>

> Honestly, I see clear answers from legal-discuss for only a small
> fraction of the questions that are submitted.  I don't know if we're
> misusing that list or what.  But it does not appear to operate like a
> list where you submit a questions and get a definitive answer in a
> finite period of time,

It's is a sign that demand exceeds capacity :-/

The last time we were this busy, the contributions of a small number
of lawyers (at major tech companies) really made the difference. Looks
like they've drifted away. If anyone knows a lawyer who might be
interesting in contributing, then please ask them to join the list.

I recommend noting the slow response from legal-discuss as an
impediment in the next podling report (to let the board know).

> Do Mentors have have an idea on whether we're approaching these
> questions the right way?

(I'm not a mentor but please forgive give me for jumping in)

Apache is sometimes described as a do-ocracy. Submitting patches is
the path to karma.

> In particular, should be forcing the questions by proposing a
> categorization and seeking lazy consensus?  For example, "If there are
> no objections within 3 days to treating the Boost Licence as Category
> A compatible, then we assume lazy consensus and go forward with that
> treatment"

Dennis seems clueful :-)

If he were to start proposing patches to complement his analysis, that
would increase the probability that someone would apply them (by
reducing the time required to implement the policy clarification).

Robert

Mime
View raw message