www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From s...@apache.org
Subject svn commit: r1440668 - /infrastructure/site/trunk/content/legal/reports.mdtext
Date Wed, 30 Jan 2013 21:07:08 GMT
Author: sebb
Date: Wed Jan 30 21:07:07 2013
New Revision: 1440668

URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1440668&view=rev
Log:
Fix up some word-wraps; revert to the original wrapping (before CMS conversion)

Modified:
    infrastructure/site/trunk/content/legal/reports.mdtext

Modified: infrastructure/site/trunk/content/legal/reports.mdtext
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/infrastructure/site/trunk/content/legal/reports.mdtext?rev=1440668&r1=1440667&r2=1440668&view=diff
==============================================================================
--- infrastructure/site/trunk/content/legal/reports.mdtext (original)
+++ infrastructure/site/trunk/content/legal/reports.mdtext Wed Jan 30 21:07:07 2013
@@ -176,8 +176,7 @@ outside:
     exemption may not apply - consult a lawyer)
   General question as to whether ASF code can be sublicensed commercially
     (can and does)
-  Hypothetical Discussion between Bruce Perens and Larry Rosen (over my
-  head)
+  Hypothetical Discussion between Bruce Perens and Larry Rosen (over my head)
 
 Referred elsewhere:
   Two separate potential violation of an ASF Trademark (to PRC)
@@ -241,25 +240,19 @@ Very quiet month, nothing requiring boar
 
 Naming discussion on JSecurity.  Probably would not have given approval to
 that name in the first place, but given that the name has been in use for
-four years without an issue being raised, there isn't consensus on
-requiring
-a change.  That being said the naming discussion was an inevitable
-bikeshed.
+four years without an issue being raised, there isn't consensus on requiring
+a change.  That being said the naming discussion was an inevitable bikeshed.
 
-Discussion of whether a given W3C license was category 'B' or 'X'.  Given
-that
+Discussion of whether a given W3C license was category 'B' or 'X'.  Given that
 the code in question was dual licensed with BSD, the question was moot.
 
 A discussion about a different W3C license and the policy of not allowing 
-non-OSS code in SVN wandered off into nowhere as hypothetical discussions
-are
+non-OSS code in SVN wandered off into nowhere as hypothetical discussions are
 want to do.  There was a similar discussion about PDF CJK fonts, and it
-appears that the direction there will be to dynamically download the data
-vs
+appears that the direction there will be to dynamically download the data vs
 polluting SVN.
 
-A question about dealing with the US Government was handled by Larry
-off-list.
+A question about dealing with the US Government was handled by Larry off-list.
 </pre>
 
 # December 17, 2008 # {#2008-12-17}
@@ -300,8 +293,7 @@ Other threads:
 
 Does working on Sun RI automatically "contaminate" developer, and preclude
 them from working on ASF project?  Answer: not in general, though specific
-PMCs may have specific rules in place depending on the nature of the
-project.
+PMCs may have specific rules in place depending on the nature of the project.
 
 Lenya website redesign - ensuring that the contributions are under the
 appropriate license.
@@ -331,13 +323,11 @@ Attachment 2: Status report for the Apac
 It would be helpful to obtain a Notice of Allowance from Robyn in order to
 pursue registering the SpamAssassin Trademark.
 
-Sebastian Bazley updated the mailbox drop information on CCLAs to reflect
-our
+Sebastian Bazley updated the mailbox drop information on CCLAs to reflect our
 Wells Fargo lockbox.
 
 Discussed documenting privacy policies w.r.t. Google analytics and
-interpreting "internal use" as our project mailing lists.  Parallel
-discussion
+interpreting "internal use" as our project mailing lists.  Parallel discussion
 occurred on site-dev.
 
 Advised Facelets to preserve NOTICEs and not to modify copyright claims
@@ -348,14 +338,11 @@ projects.  Looks promising.
 
 Once again, a discussion of making section 5 of the Apache License, Version
 2.0 more explicit via mailing list messages surfaced.  Thankfully, it died
-quickly.  My feeling is that what we have works for us for now, and
-shouldn't
+quickly.  My feeling is that what we have works for us for now, and shouldn't
 be changed unless there is a specific issue.
 
-A company offered Lucene access to archived blog data.  There was a
-discussion
-concerning us hosting a copy of this, but this made some people
-uncomfortable
+A company offered Lucene access to archived blog data.  There was a discussion
+concerning us hosting a copy of this, but this made some people uncomfortable
 w.r.t. potential copyright violations.
 
 Discussed w3c's copyright-documents-19990405.html.  Overall doesn't look
@@ -407,22 +394,17 @@ on
 the specific projects and specific employers in question.
 
 PDFBox was originally BSD licensed and obtained software grants from all of
-the primary authors.  A question was asked regarding small contributions
-from
+the primary authors.  A question was asked regarding small contributions from
 people who they are no longer able contact.  Given the size of the
-contributions in question, the original license, and the fact that
-reasonable
-efforts were made to locate such people, it was determined that this was
-not a
+contributions in question, the original license, and the fact that reasonable
+efforts were made to locate such people, it was determined that this was not a
 concern.
 
-A FAQ was added that older versions of Apache software licensed under
-Apache
+A FAQ was added that older versions of Apache software licensed under Apache
 Software License 1.0 are still licensed as such.
 
 Creative Commons Share-Alike Attribution version 3.0 license has been
-approved, provided the materials in question are unmodified.  Previously,
-only
+approved, provided the materials in question are unmodified.  Previously, only
 the 2.5 version had been approved.
 
 A JIRA was opened on documenting release voting procedures.  No owner.
@@ -435,25 +417,18 @@ SyntaxHighlighter (LGPL) was approved fo
 Nobody seems to know the licensing status of BEA's StAX implementation, so
 most projects are simply routing around it.
 
-Larry has volunteered to register SpamAssassin trademarks.  Given that the
-PRC
-and the SA PMCs are OK with this, if the board approves the expenditure,
-I'll
+Larry has volunteered to register SpamAssassin trademarks.  Given that the PRC
+and the SA PMCs are OK with this, if the board approves the expenditure, I'll
 tell him to proceed.
 
-David Crossley has produced a first draft of a project naming document. 
-He's
-been on the list for over a year, and starting in July of this year has
-picked
+David Crossley has produced a first draft of a project naming document.  He's
+been on the list for over a year, and starting in July of this year has picked
 up his participation.
 
-Routine copyright/notice questions from Felix, CouchDB, JAMES and the
-Incubator.
+Routine copyright/notice questions from Felix, CouchDB, JAMES and the Incubator.
 
-RSA's implementation of MD4/MD5 says one thing in their licensing headers
-and
-a quite different thing on their IETF IPR statement.  I think we are
-covered,
+RSA's implementation of MD4/MD5 says one thing in their licensing headers and
+a quite different thing on their IETF IPR statement.  I think we are covered,
 but we still need to settle how to document this properly.
 
 Bluesky inquired about moving away from some (unspecified) C++ Standard
@@ -461,18 +436,13 @@ library implementation to STLPORT, presu
 Everything I have heard to date indicates that we would be comfortable with
 either implementation.
 
-Google Analytics continues to be explored.  Justin expressed an opinion
-that,
-while a bit stronger than I recall the board expressing, is one that I'm
-quite
-pleased and comfortable with: namely that we start from a presumption of
-data
-of this type being open to all, and work backwards from there -- making
-closed
+Google Analytics continues to be explored.  Justin expressed an opinion that,
+while a bit stronger than I recall the board expressing, is one that I'm quite
+pleased and comfortable with: namely that we start from a presumption of data
+of this type being open to all, and work backwards from there -- making closed
 only what we must.
 
-A discussion has just started on the legal implications of contests
-involving
+A discussion has just started on the legal implications of contests involving
 prizes.  If the prizes themselves are donated, and are substantial, we may
 have to consider such as targeted donations.
 </pre>
@@ -494,8 +464,7 @@ have to consider such as targeted donati
 -----------------------------------------
 Attachment 3: Status report for the Apache Legal Affairs Committee
 
-While comments were made on a half-dozen or so JIRA issues, none were
-either
+While comments were made on a half-dozen or so JIRA issues, none were either
 created or closed this month.  I believe that this process is working
 smoothly, and does not warrant board attention.
 
@@ -503,48 +472,38 @@ Notable discussions that occurred during
 
 As reported elsewhere, Microsoft clarified their position on their Open
 Specification Promise.  As near as I can tell, everybody feels that this
-completely resolves the issues surrounding the upcoming OOXML support by
-POI.
+completely resolves the issues surrounding the upcoming OOXML support by POI.
 
 The division of labor between the PRC, the incubator, and the Legal Affairs
 Committee continues to confuse people.  My understanding is that the PRC is
-responsible for enforcing our claim to names, the incubator is responsible
-for
-IP clearance (including names), and the Legal Affairs Committee helps
-respond
+responsible for enforcing our claim to names, the incubator is responsible for
+IP clearance (including names), and the Legal Affairs Committee helps respond
 to claims made against the ASF.
 
 A GPL license question surfaced -- this started out with Xapian which is
 licensed under GPL v2 and confusion over what the FSF claims of
 "compatibility" with the Apache License means. Eventually this discussion
-wandered off into the territory of hypotheticals.  GPL v2 remains on the
-ASF's
+wandered off into the territory of hypotheticals.  GPL v2 remains on the ASF's
 restricted list (a.k.a. Category "X").
 
-By contrast, syntax highlighter (licensed under the LGPL) was approved for
-the
+By contrast, syntax highlighter (licensed under the LGPL) was approved for the
 limited purposes of non-essential enhancement of online documentation.
 
-There was a brief discussion on "blanket" grants and "commit by proxy". 
-This
+There was a brief discussion on "blanket" grants and "commit by proxy".  This
 was resolved by citing the relevant sections of the ICLA which has explicit
 provisions for the enablement of submitting code on behalf of a third
 party.
 
 There was a brief discussion as to whether an ICLA sufficient when a person
-may have been exposed to ideas and alternate implementations from a
-previous
-employer.  Our position is yes.  Individual PMCs are welcome to set a
-higher
+may have been exposed to ideas and alternate implementations from a previous
+employer.  Our position is yes.  Individual PMCs are welcome to set a higher
 bar for themselves.
 
-A permathread re-erupted: when are Apache License Headers needed?  The
-general
+A permathread re-erupted: when are Apache License Headers needed?  The general
 guidance is that they should be added whenever practical, but only where
 practical.
 
-There is an ongoing discussion about notice requirements when code is
-reused
+There is an ongoing discussion about notice requirements when code is reused
 from other projects.
 </pre>
 
@@ -605,8 +564,7 @@ Attachment 2: Status report for the Apac
 Another month with little controversy.
 
 At this point /legal/resolved.html contains the bulk of the content
-from the draft 3party text upon which there is wide consensus.  This
-includes
+from the draft 3party text upon which there is wide consensus.  This includes
 the discussion of category 'A', 'B', and 'X' licenses.  Henri has a real
 talent for proposing text upon which people can find common ground.
 
@@ -623,8 +581,7 @@ Two major areas of future focus:
 Nearer term is a sincere desire in a number of areas to be more proactive
 about obtaining suitable licenses for potential patents.  This has caused
 problems as patent licensing issues are not as clear cut as copyright or
-trademark issues.  I'm comfortable having the Legal Affairs Committee
-making
+trademark issues.  I'm comfortable having the Legal Affairs Committee making
 the call that, for example, WSRP4J and POI pose acceptable risks for the
 foundation, and downstream help PMCs mitigate those risks should these
 assessments prove to be unfounded.
@@ -845,8 +802,7 @@ other saw little difference between posi
 equally negatively to position 1 as the first camp did to position 3.
 
 A bare minimum that I believe that we can achieve ready consensus on is
-a policy that all sofware developed at the ASF from here on is to be
-licensed
+a policy that all sofware developed at the ASF from here on is to be licensed
 under the Apache License, Version 2.0, and that we will take no actions
 that limit our ability to distribute our software under this license.
 Roy has indicated that this may not have been the policy in the distant
@@ -875,21 +831,17 @@ less relevant.  In any case, add to all 
 first world view becomes not only harder to understand and administer,
 it becomes absolutely unworkable.  Simply put, an excemption for "system"
 dependencies that is based on a "I'll know it when I see it" policy doesn't
-work if a substantial portion of the people who may be drawn upon to
-express
+work if a substantial portion of the people who may be drawn upon to express
 an opinion on the subject simply don't believe that any such distinction is
 either necessary or even makes sense as a policy.
 
 Therefore it appears that the only workable policy is one where we continue
-to require PMCs to compile a comprehensive set of LICENSEs to accompany
-each
+to require PMCs to compile a comprehensive set of LICENSEs to accompany each
 of our releases so that our licensees can make an informed decision.  That,
-and perhaps to we can increase our efforts to educate PMCs as to the
-effects
+and perhaps to we can increase our efforts to educate PMCs as to the effects
 such dependencies have on community size.
 
-While this approach is workable, it is one that may be difficult to
-reverse.
+While this approach is workable, it is one that may be difficult to reverse.
 Hence, a slow and cautious approach is warranted.  Should there be any
 as of yet unexpressed feedback, now would be a good time to provide it.
 



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


Mime
View raw message