www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>
Subject Re: [RE-VOTE #3] adoption of mod_combine subproject
Date Wed, 28 Mar 2012 11:02:52 GMT
On 03/28/2012 02:07 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>  From the Apache HTTP Server project;
> On the combined topics of mod_firehose, mod_policy and mod_combine;
> Declaring the vote on #3 failed (both originally, and the revote).  RE-VOTE
> #1 and #2 for firehose and policy modules (respectively) each have passed, for
> adoption into httpd trunk.  (Backport is a separate and additional matter.)
> Firehose is already in httpd trunk, and policy awaits its import by minfrin.
> Thank you for presenting these works to the project for consideration, Graham!
> Now to resolve any last VP Legal concerns to get those first two modules
> adopted without a theater of the absurd IP Intake Procedural hurdle.  Fielding
> had previously cleared that the entire ridiculous process was unnecessary and
> the httpd project continues to choose not to observe it, pending any legitimate
> illustration of its efficacy or benefit.
> (Would you like your air conditioning unit fixed, there?  Would ya?  You might
> have a clog in your IP Intake Hose.  Central Services would be most displeased
> if we muck around with it, ya know.  Must keep this hush hush... hand me that
> wrench...)
> CC'ing VP Legal by way of legal-discuss, to ask one final time for hizzoner's
> conclusion to https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52322 - The
> httpd project considers the matter resolved, barring any legitimate objection
> from our legal expertise (per prior communiques) before month's end.
> Thanks all at httpd who voted on these three new modules, thanks Graham with
> the cooperation of Simon and the BBC for their submission (oooh... the irony!!!),
> and thank you in advance VP, Legal of the ASF for your considered recommendation
> on the matter of procedural handling of the intake on this intellectual property.

Cut out the drama.  It is not helpful here.

The simple question is whether or not Graham has met the conditions 
specified in section 3 and 4 of the ICLA:


Answer that in the affirmative, and you are done.

> Yours sincerely,
> Bill [not Tuttle] Rowe
> Former VP, Apache HTTP Server Project
> [Do hope you all enjoy the allegory, God love Terry Gilliam!]

- Sam Ruby

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

View raw message