www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <...@jaguNET.com>
Subject Re: New versions of CC licenses
Date Mon, 09 Dec 2013 22:00:48 GMT
Both of you take this off-list. I will not allow you both
to continue your squabbles here... It's getting quite old
and tiresome.

On Dec 9, 2013, at 4:42 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
> I wrote to Jeff Thompson:
> 
> > As long as you honor the requirements of Apache License 2.0, 
> > including section 4, then I will retract.
> 
> 
> Jeff Thompson responded:
> 
> 
> > I don't see any quotes, so I take that as an indication that you had misunderstood
this discussion and you have no actual support for your previous allegations.  Can we please
keep this discussion at least tangentially related to the matter at hand?
> 
> 
> I seem to recall you saying earlier in this long thread that IBM does not need to pass
along the Apache license for copies and derivative works of ASF software that you distribute.
Is that the case or not? That would be a violation of AL2, Section 4.
> 
> 
>  I encourage you to provide a citation where he made that statement.
> 
> 
> Sam Ruby wrote:
> 
> > It is bad enough that you made a public accusation without any evidence. 
> 
>  
> 
> I thought I was quoting Jeffrey. If not, I'm sure he'll correct me, and I'm eager to
be shown I'm wrong.
> 
>  
> 
> In the meantime, I would appreciate your recusing yourself from this discussion about
IBM policies and practices regarding Apache software.
> 
> 
> This is not a discussion about IBM policies and practices.  If you know of a specific
violation by IBM, I encourage you to provide something more than an accusation.  If you indeed
find something, I will readily recuse myself from THAT discussion.
>  
> Before on this list, in the middle of a discussion we were having with Jeff, you closed
down the discussion about an earlier JIRA issue and sided with your own IBM company attorney.
You are personally entitled to do so, but as a board member at Apache you should avoid any
conflict of interest, particularly for something as important as IBM's procedures for distributing
Apache software and derivative works thereof and for acknowledging the copyrights and licenses
of Apache and its contributors.
> 
> 
> No decisions were made, the relevant JIRA is still open.
> 
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-167
> 
> There was a separate JIRA where you misunderstood the intent and scope of a W3C experiment,
and you, yourself, marked that as closed.
> 
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-179
>  
> 
> /Larry
> 
> 
> - Sam Ruby 
> 


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


Mime
View raw message