Return-Path: 
 <ooo-dev-return-7037-apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive=incubator.apache.org@incubator.apache.org>
X-Original-To: apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org
Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org
Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3])
	by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 63BBD7940
	for <apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org>;
 Fri, 14 Oct 2011 14:18:12 +0000 (UTC)
Received: (qmail 86851 invoked by uid 500); 14 Oct 2011 14:18:12 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org
Received: (qmail 86777 invoked by uid 500); 14 Oct 2011 14:18:12 -0000
Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ooo-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org>
List-Id: <ooo-dev.incubator.apache.org>
Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Delivered-To: mailing list ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received: (qmail 86769 invoked by uid 99); 14 Oct 2011 14:18:12 -0000
Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 14:18:12 +0000
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=5.0
	tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.213.47 as permitted sender)
Received: from [209.85.213.47] (HELO mail-yw0-f47.google.com) (209.85.213.47)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 14:18:04 +0000
Received: by ywf7 with SMTP id 7so2274476ywf.6
        for <ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org>;
 Fri, 14 Oct 2011 07:17:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=avfqnwpxrYSsv8kfmSkYYsCByW8Ovkfd4qGxTy0wcxg=;
        b=d3WYAnpqLAqeQffCUS848NX9u0KDix6fG1z1npWYDXcQfAOD+9qKiErEjgPjm8pxCs
         0QDmDnl5k3uDuP6XlVZKlmoAS/EqXdREFI/ujbH5R8Avx72qrhDJ6gcZ8kY5fpyK3k47
         YOklxmM4ehGuT82LnLi8ijrAm0QINnvirGIfQ=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.236.124.50 with SMTP id w38mr11834810yhh.104.1318601863795;
 Fri, 14 Oct 2011 07:17:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.236.44.99 with HTTP; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 07:17:43 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAP-ksoiZBHYGaU2JUKAm6uNpdJHZM66KZUC-J5pP39jbhrZK4g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4E81BCAD.9050502@googlemail.com>
	<CAP-ksoj0E6ZWMaY+QBoke3+h_gYDTRAkrYSJC_yCxV8hvzvTKg@mail.gmail.com>
	<4E81C897.4070800@googlemail.com>
	<4E81CF52.7060506@googlemail.com>
	<OF47BA1FEE.4CD40CEC-ON48257919.000C20AB-48257919.000C3E60@cn.ibm.com>
	<4E82D158.4020909@googlemail.com>
	<CAP-ksoiZBHYGaU2JUKAm6uNpdJHZM66KZUC-J5pP39jbhrZK4g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 15:17:43 +0100
Message-ID: 
 <CAKTa1mivd1tTR6=kPLkmmr=uT-6Cn6SV0X+GdEV02DZod+6iXw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [legal] How to clarify,
 if usage of Boost C++ source libraries is allowed
From: Robert Burrell Donkin <robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com>
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org

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. =A0I don't know if we're
> misusing that list or what. =A0But 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? =A0For 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