www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Henri Yandell" <bay...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Ramblings of an ASF VP, Legal Affairs
Date Thu, 20 Mar 2008 15:13:05 GMT
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 10:44 PM, Matthieu Riou <matthieu@offthelip.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 9:48 PM, Henri Yandell <bayard@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 9:28 PM, Henri Yandell <bayard@apache.org> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 7:50 PM, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
> wrote:
> > >  > On Mar 19, 2008, at 3:59 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> > >
> >
> > >  >  > Muddled as it might be, it is a snapshot of how I see
> > >  >  > things today.  And that will guide how I intend to shepard the
> > >  >  > following to closure:
> > >  >  >
> > >  >  > http://wiki.apache.org/legal/OpenLegalQuestions
> > >  >
> > >  >  That's great, but may I request that
> > >  >
> > >  >    http://wiki.apache.org/legal/ResolvedLegalQuestions
> > >  >
> > >  >  and any semi-finished documents and resolved issues be
> > >  >  placed in our subversion and on our real website?  Please?
> > >  >  Posted legal/licensing opinions require an authoritative
> > >  >  trail and a restricted set of authors.
> > >
> > >  Absolutely. If no one else gets around to it, I'll work on that
> tomorrow night.
> > >
> > >  So seems like we have a process.
> > >
> > >  Question on legal-discuss@ [usually].
> > >  Consensus.
> > >  Record at http://www.apache.org/legal/ by Legal Committee member.
> >
> > Child's bath lasted longer than I expected.
> >
> > Shall I commit and publish this:
> >
> > http://people.apache.org/~bayard/resolved.html
> >
> > Then people can fix any bad language and make pretty tables as it
> > grows etc. Just want to make sure there's consensus before I post such
> > a stunningly strong statement :)

Done. Will show up in a bit.

I don't know if we want to hook things up so /legal/ and /licenses/
notifications come to this list. Seems worth doing.

> What about adding the "anything written in Ruby and made available under the
> Ruby license is OK as a dependency for a project written in Ruby" bit? Seems
> consensual enough (until now).

Yeah, was starting small.

I'll kick off a separate thread.

Hen

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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


Mime
View raw message