Return-Path: 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 4402A10F1F for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 04:52:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 51999 invoked by uid 500); 30 Oct 2013 04:51:52 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 51486 invoked by uid 500); 30 Oct 2013 04:51:51 -0000 Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: Reply-To: legal-discuss@apache.org List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list legal-discuss@apache.org Received: (qmail 51479 invoked by uid 99); 30 Oct 2013 04:51:50 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 04:51:50 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy includes SPF record at spf.trusted-forwarder.org) Received: from [209.85.220.53] (HELO mail-pa0-f53.google.com) (209.85.220.53) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 04:51:44 +0000 Received: by mail-pa0-f53.google.com with SMTP id kx10so384558pab.26 for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 21:51:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:from:content-type:message-id:mime-version :subject:date:references:to:in-reply-to; bh=M5zEwX+MbrUvdHz3QH9Ad40w4JKnZ5fKx+Fw54gOkZs=; b=lzS5IuJ5Spco1Wx+iocinL7eSfhmU7MP6GLfzF/mpNdRqJ3/Sq9DpTHejrtWIDUu26 OAS8pxEDRHBDd/6NOR2S83OEiz9GlkjfCHNPSzoOeS/yXdGfOj3CZQqmGJ464hBFk8vT uHiC4pLRx3x2sCdCWPCiJkrLUHiC+ivu02HEew+39d81oLt1a1wO6tACtc3YESaO06KZ 4kALmQqQz7Ez2ghCgnyjALpGoINU1S/1VttwsnhdiOasTdIgxOUg3d0teQk+pUOxFlFk MEaJ5x+vh1e1yn19qCScJM0d7iyXVgFuQ2ifyHab0kBOOj8HC79UuxFuHxZoMO+p5dPy 4/wQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkWO7WIrQJ7T++JUhvdZNQmIH/XbaA3fwXXpOcE8JdMkWLVo4K6Yjdrz6neyLBAaP65hMzA X-Received: by 10.68.137.9 with SMTP id qe9mr3049416pbb.133.1383108682490; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 21:51:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.0.11] (ppp121-44-144-106.lns20.syd7.internode.on.net. [121.44.144.106]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id hi5sm16661383pbb.43.2013.10.29.21.51.13 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 29 Oct 2013 21:51:14 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Brett Porter From: Brett Porter Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D646DB47-8A48-483A-A938-A3962C667C86" Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1816\)) Subject: Re: Apache's Third Party Licensing Policy Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 15:51:16 +1100 References: <001501ced4b9$f4b56550$de202ff0$@rosenlaw.com> To: legal-discuss@apache.org, lrosen@rosenlaw.com In-Reply-To: <001501ced4b9$f4b56550$de202ff0$@rosenlaw.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1816) X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --Apple-Mail=_D646DB47-8A48-483A-A938-A3962C667C86 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi Larry, On 30 Oct 2013, at 2:17 am, Lawrence Rosen wrote: > In particular, I made this request which the Board has refused to = respond to: > I challenge you to find anywhere on our website the written "policy" = that Sam invoked to delay a decision about this and other third party = license issues that I raised in LEGAL-179 /and/ several previous JIRA = issues. "Policy" DOES NOT MEAN "the VP of Legal Affairs decided". You = should quit inventing policy as you go along. > Can anyone else among our members please help us find authority for = these actions by the VP of Legal Affairs? I've never seen that officer's = actual role described, certainly not in any way that would provide = written guidance for the "policy" that he invokes. I'd like to see = something consistent with our mission statement: "The Foundation = provides an established framework for intellectual property...." Earlier in that private thread, two links were provided that outline the = authority to establish policy: = http://www.apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2005/board_minutes_2005_0= 6_22.txt Special Order 6. B. Appoint a Vice President of Legal Affairs = http://www.apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2007/board_minutes_2007_0= 3_28.txt Special Order 8. C. Establish the Legal Affairs Committee The process of recording specific answered questions was discussed by = the Legal Affairs Committee in March 2008 on this list, and has been in = operation since that time. The following statement of intent was used: "As much as humanly possible, everything will be by consensus of the = Legal Affairs Committee, though possibly via Lazy Consensus. If there = ever is a time that consensus can't be reached, the decision will fall = to the Chair who will keep the board informed on any such issues." I hope this addresses your question. Regards, Brett -- Brett Porter @brettporter http://brettporter.wordpress.com/ http://au.linkedin.com/in/brettporter --Apple-Mail=_D646DB47-8A48-483A-A938-A3962C667C86 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Hi Larry,

On 30 Oct 2013, at = 2:17 am, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com> = wrote:

In particular, I made this request which the = Board has refused to respond to:
I challenge you to find anywhere on = our website the written "policy" that Sam invoked to delay a decision = about this and other third party license issues that I raised in = LEGAL-179 /and/ several previous JIRA issues. "Policy" DOES NOT MEAN = "the VP of Legal Affairs decided". You should quit inventing policy as = you go along.
Can anyone = else among our members please help us find authority for these actions = by the VP of Legal Affairs? I've never seen that officer's actual role = described, certainly not in any way that would provide written guidance = for the "policy" that he invokes. I'd like to see something consistent = with our mission statement: "The Foundation provides an established = framework for intellectual = property...."

Earlier = in that private thread, two links were provided that outline the = authority to establish policy:

Special Order 6. B. Appoint a Vice President of Legal = Affairs

Special Order 8. C. Establish the Legal Affairs = Committee

The process of recording specific answered questions was = discussed by the Legal Affairs Committee in March 2008 on this list, and = has been in operation since that time. The following statement of intent = was used:
"As much as humanly possible, everything will be by = consensus of the Legal Affairs Committee, though possibly via Lazy = Consensus. If there ever is a time that consensus can't be reached, the = decision will fall to the Chair who will keep the board informed on = any such issues."

I hope this addresses your = question.

Regards,
Brett

=

= --Apple-Mail=_D646DB47-8A48-483A-A938-A3962C667C86--