Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
  h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type;
  b=zGnBm8hGmPuuKL7SAhf9YavHeGArT5ExWVDwK9ZkP7XshjM4UeiUzBu7+tsKCv6zjmIOiNZxZshtJcGet2ecBRws2OROxh6FcWf3g6esjvmzIYd26Oj+sa082GCsflODQCLil8kFq7Q49Y+4YAskVsjp//5i3nb9HWbmwCoaSO8=;
Message-ID: <124798.98403.qm@web54409.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
References: <f767f0601001110028n54d85d03xaf703119fa08df6e@mail.gmail.com>
 <e75283b11001110039s1d25a9cav601c96e1e3ac3f8d@mail.gmail.com>
 <f767f0601001110046i6d6c77a9j20e3219fdb4f06e1@mail.gmail.com>
 <201001111131.47218.dkulp@apache.org> <036b01ca92e0$0520dd90$0f6298b0$@com>
 <341729.34018.qm@web54407.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
 <037801ca92f0$22f09940$68d1cbc0$@com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 11:13:58 -0800 (PST)
From: Joe Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Committer refuses to remove copyright notices in source
 (ESME-47), how best to solve?
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
In-Reply-To: <037801ca92f0$22f09940$68d1cbc0$@com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

----- Original Message ----

> From: Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> Sent: Mon, January 11, 2010 1:59:00 PM
> Subject: RE: Committer refuses to remove copyright notices in source (ESME-47), how best to solve?
> 
> Joe Schaefer wrote:
> > It is trivial to get "who-contributed-what" information from
> > subversion.  
> 
> That is great. But I note that "who contributed" isn't necessarily the same
> as "who claimed ownership of the copyright." 

To a downstream user who complies with the Apache license, what difference does
it make?  It only matters to someone who intends to violate the license and
rely on some other agreement with the copyright owner.  I simply could care
less about those cases as they don't further the foundation's mission in the
least.  We distribute icla and ccla information to anyone who wants it, that
should be enough for anyone who is familiar with how subversion works.

> 
> > The only thing collecting that additional information in the NOTICE file
> > would provide is more redundant overhead for downstream repackagers to 
> > carry along with our releases.  
> 
> And that hurts the downstream repackagers in what ways? We don't charge per
> byte.

You must be new to open source ;-).  Downstream repackagers and people producing
derivative works do not want to pass along third-party NOTICES to their consumers,
as once things are in our NOTICE file they cannot be removed.  The ASF offers
clean and simple licensing terms which is not intended to be accompanied by a
laundry list of explicit IP claims.


> > If that means more work for third party attorneys come
> > enforcement time, them's the breaks.
> 
> I suppose that, as a paid attorney, I shouldn't worry about more work. As a
> potential client, you should be.

Not if I expect the ASF to make enforcement decisions ;-)


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org