www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <...@jaguNET.com>
Subject Re: Foundation relationships with publishing bodies
Date Fri, 21 Feb 2014 18:01:29 GMT

On Feb 21, 2014, at 12:51 PM, Lewis John Mcgibbney <lewis.mcgibbney@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> This has not been done. Possibly this comes back to how our docs are licensed? ASLv2.0?
The reason I reiterate this point is that quite simply I (and I can imagine many many others)
are completely turned off by the thought that third party publishers are looking to make a
cheap bug out of well written and carefully constructed community documentation. I am coming
from a foundation-wide POV here. What safe guards do we have in place to address this situation
as it is quite clearly a problem?
>  

Well, people also make a quick buck out of selling our well written and
carefully constructed software :)

> Nor do
> I think royalties are in order; simply attribution and
> acknowledgement is fine.
> 
> Without putting words in your mouth, are you indirectly saying that TheASF is NOT receiving
any kind of benefit from Packt (and others) using our trademarks and more specifically our
documentation in this manner? This does not seem to agree with some conversation I've had
elsewhere. 
> 

Using our trademarks?? No, they should not be doing that.

Using our docs? Sure. They are under the same license as our code.


> Is/are there any archive documentation in SVN which details any relationships dealings
with publishers of our content?
>  
> I think we really need to clarify the above points... along with my other questions.
> 
> Although I have not been around as long as many many others, I have not spent years of
my life contributing under the foundation model only for people to snatch the content, wrap
their name around it, package it and ship it as if it is their product, time and effort. That
in my eyes is not on. It is clear plagiarism, and whilst this may not be a legal issue (maybe
it is I am not knowledgeable to provide a concrete opinion) it is certainly one which highlights
the requirement to obtain safe guards and protection for the communities and people who make
and contribute to this foundation. 
> 
> Thanks for your comments. As I said Jim, I am NOT trying to put words in to your mouth.
I am however curious to get to the bottom of where 'we' stand on this one.
> Thanks


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


Mime
View raw message