www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Lewis John Mcgibbney <lewis.mcgibb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Foundation relationships with publishing bodies
Date Fri, 21 Feb 2014 17:51:58 GMT
Hi Folks,

Thanks for replies. I am comforted somewhat by others' outlook on this
rather unfortunate topic.


On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 3:24 PM, <legal-discuss-digest-help@apache.org>wrote:

> <http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html>
> We don't mind people taking our doc's wholesale, but they
> for sure should indicate where they obtained them.

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?

> 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.

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

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.

View raw message