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 5FC36101B8 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2014 00:44:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 54060 invoked by uid 500); 8 Mar 2014 00:43:50 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 53818 invoked by uid 500); 8 Mar 2014 00:43:49 -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 53811 invoked by uid 99); 8 Mar 2014 00:43:49 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 08 Mar 2014 00:43:49 +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: domain of sa3ruby@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.180 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.214.180] (HELO mail-ob0-f180.google.com) (209.85.214.180) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 08 Mar 2014 00:43:43 +0000 Received: by mail-ob0-f180.google.com with SMTP id wn1so4760445obc.25 for ; Fri, 07 Mar 2014 16:43:22 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=wCNjH9Hc8FViZH8/1G6pYTNhGA5Pc462siAzBewn+k8=; b=i7piOesSKVNFxIejCEVIA9FqvUyvGe468SpuT4ZZXQOfbNvirMPzsanukKcSBjhCcS EeWh6PsIQtOiNGLINzGVnKzJF+dEQ05xP+266b7zCfdXSAKQjxxtBU3AYkOr7Z+PUq+H Kn8fJ5UrrZeNIoIWaYHqF/n+dE4+/3YUqsQdzNDq03lYTWOVxR1Fobo0Gk5xD+/BDjh3 lE5PS6vpv0z5oQW/QUYXgrLGjcNgFoIJpfPcFlCQKAPd7EpRWcHKuDVrcWVADAJR8wi7 B93S6JN1NQN3kdrpvh54BrNZpGJVVRhmdLZMMXpYkfkM5e+ar/R/K/uZPFhDVbHQNgkx 94KQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.141.105 with SMTP id rn9mr13602968oeb.27.1394239402213; Fri, 07 Mar 2014 16:43:22 -0800 (PST) Sender: sa3ruby@gmail.com Received: by 10.60.18.12 with HTTP; Fri, 7 Mar 2014 16:43:22 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <5318F26F.10109@nrl.navy.mil> References: <531792EA.7080409@nrl.navy.mil> <388610E4-31F6-4F3D-A45B-C0CCE2E4C8DC@jaguNET.com> <40489573.15098609.1394138791060.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> <5318E665.2050209@nrl.navy.mil> <676734696.15118170.1394141552754.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> <5318F26F.10109@nrl.navy.mil> Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2014 19:43:22 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: aacR8Zq37z88LvtdLc7Vew57BJ8 Message-ID: Subject: Re: ICLA US Government From: Sam Ruby To: Legal Discuss Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b2e55ae4d094204f40da858 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --047d7b2e55ae4d094204f40da858 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 5:10 PM, Evan Ward wrote: > The helpful lawyers here have informed me that I don't have the > authority to make the agreements spelled out in the original ICLA. I will state that many such helpful lawyers have made similar assertions. Lawyers employed by both private companies and in the public sector. And each time that I can recall, each of those lawyers came to a different conclusion. > I > think signing it would be dishonest, both towards Apache and my > employer. I would not encourage you to do anything dishonest. I will again state that we have many, many contributors who have been told by their helpful lawyers the same thing your helpful lawyer told you. And after going back and working with their lawyer, came back with a different conclusion. - Sam Ruby P.S. While it is clearly not a parallel situation (I am not in the public sector), I will state that I am amongst those who was initially told by my employer the exact same thing that you were told, namely that I do not have the authority to make the agreements spelled out in the ICLA. I was persistent, and ultimately prevailed. --047d7b2e55ae4d094204f40da858 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

= On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 5:10 PM, Evan Ward <evan.ward@nrl.navy.mil= > wrote:
The helpful lawyers here = have informed me that I don't have the
authority to make the agreements spelled out in the original ICLA.

I will state that many such helpful lawyers=20 have made similar assertions.=C2=A0 Lawyers employed by both private=20 companies and in the public sector.=C2=A0 And each time that I can recall,= =20 each of those lawyers came to a different conclusion.
=C2=A0
I
think signing it would be dishonest, both towards Apache and my
employer.

I would not encourage you to do = anything dishonest.=C2=A0 I will again state that we have many, many contri= butors who have been told by their helpful lawyers the same thing your help= ful lawyer told you.=C2=A0 And after going back and working with their lawy= er, came back with a different conclusion.

- Sam Ruby

P.S.=C2=A0 While it is clearly = not a parallel situation (I am not in the public sector), I will state that= I am amongst those who was initially told by my employer the exact same th= ing that you were told, namely that I do not have the authority to make the= agreements spelled out in the ICLA.=C2=A0 I was persistent, and ultimately= prevailed.
--047d7b2e55ae4d094204f40da858--