www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Roy T. Fielding" <field...@gbiv.com>
Subject Re: Should we be warning Committers?
Date Fri, 05 Oct 2007 18:13:53 GMT
On Oct 5, 2007, at 7:17 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> How do the concerns raised by Miguel de Icaza and others regarding  
> the .NET framework sources differ those addressed by Harmony's  
> "Authorized Contributor Questionnaire" (http://harmony.apache.org/ 
> auth_cont_quest.html)?  As I read Harmony's document, having read  
> the source code for java.*, published in src.jar with each release,  
> disqualifies you from contributing to the related area in Harmony.

None.  There is no reason for that restriction in Harmony, as Geir has
been informed several times.  The only concern we have is over copying
the source code, and that relies on ethical behavior (not memory).

> So which is it?  Does the situation differ, or should the handling  
> be the same?  And where does one draw the distinction?  Does it  
> effect Harmony because it is implementing those classes, as opposed  
> to being a user of them?

It is simple paranoia.  When the code was a trade secret, with access
limited by contract with NDA, then there was an argument that having
had access to the source meant that you were aware of those secrets.
As soon as that formerly secret code was published by the owner,
those constraints no longer apply.  That is true for both .NET and JVM.


DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only.  Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF.  See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org

View raw message