Return-Path: 
 <legal-discuss-return-6770-apmail-legal-discuss-archive=apache.org@apache.org>
X-Original-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@www.apache.org
Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@www.apache.org
Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3])
	by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2C3CB9FFB
	for <apmail-legal-discuss-archive@www.apache.org>;
 Fri,  4 Nov 2011 14:35:41 +0000 (UTC)
Received: (qmail 53260 invoked by uid 500); 4 Nov 2011 14:35:40 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@apache.org
Received: (qmail 53029 invoked by uid 500); 4 Nov 2011 14:35:40 -0000
Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:legal-discuss-help@apache.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:legal-discuss@apache.org>
Reply-To: legal-discuss@apache.org
List-Id: <legal-discuss.apache.org>
Delivered-To: mailing list legal-discuss@apache.org
Received: (qmail 53022 invoked by uid 99); 4 Nov 2011 14:35:40 -0000
Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 04 Nov 2011 14:35:40 +0000
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=5.0
	tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_NEUTRAL
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy)
Received: from [209.85.210.178] (HELO mail-iy0-f178.google.com)
 (209.85.210.178)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 04 Nov 2011 14:35:31 +0000
Received: by iadj38 with SMTP id j38so3649811iad.23
        for <legal-discuss@apache.org>; Fri, 04 Nov 2011 07:35:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.231.82.213 with SMTP id c21mr3669994ibl.70.1320417309809;
        Fri, 04 Nov 2011 07:35:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.5] ([223.207.144.245])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id
 dd36sm21451742ibb.7.2011.11.04.07.35.06
        (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Fri, 04 Nov 2011 07:35:07 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4EB3F951.2050303@osunix.org>
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2011 21:40:17 +0700
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22C=2E_Bergstr=F6m=22?= <codestr0m@osunix.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; SunOS i86pc; en-US;
 rv:1.9.2.7) Gecko/20101031 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
CC: Markus Jelsma <markus.jelsma@openindex.io>
Subject: Re: User `withdrawing` patch permission
References: <201111041527.57208.markus.jelsma@openindex.io>
In-Reply-To: <201111041527.57208.markus.jelsma@openindex.io>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org

  On 11/ 4/11 09:27 PM, Markus Jelsma wrote:
> Dear list,
>
> A contributor of the Apache Nutch project `withdrew` permission for a patch by
> deleting it and stating that permission has been withdrawn. However, the patch
> was submitted and the user selected the checkbox giving permission. Also, the
> submitted work is a patch on ASL sources.
>
> The question, can permission ever be withdrawn once it has been given and
> distributed via JIRA?
>
Markus,

<non-lawyer peanut gallery comment />
Is the patch so important as to even ask this?  There's the absolute 
legal aspects which your question is probably seeking to answer and then 
the community/contributor side of this.  Lets ignore things like maybe 
he didn't have permission in the first place to actually post the patch 
- IMHO in almost any case like this you should respect the contributors 
wishes.

./C

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