www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Shahaf <...@daniel.shahaf.name>
Subject Re: Binary channels
Date Sun, 03 Feb 2019 13:16:35 GMT
Roman Shaposhnik wrote on Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 20:23:13 -0800:
> Sorry for coming to the thread rather late.
> 
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 8:03 PM Marvin Humphrey <marvin@rectangular.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 6:50 PM Roman Shaposhnik <roman@shaposhnik.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > It is clear to me by now, that this is more of a
> > > risk-assessment/risk-benefit exercise than anything else.
> > > As was articulated by Marvin -- we, as a foundation, has to be
> > > comfortable with it.
> >
> > I could not disagree more with the characterization of this discussion as
> > reducible to "risk-assessment/risk-benefit".
> >
> > This is about our *values*!  It is about what it means to be an "open
> > source"
> > Foundation!
> >
> 
> These are some big words you're using. So lets take it down a notch.
> 
> As a foundation -- we're forever in the business of producing source code
> for the public good. That doesn't mean we couldn't provide other types
> of valuable output. Heck -- I'd say some of our publicly available mailing
> lists are extremely valuable given the amount of brain power expressed
> there.
> 
> Still, while NOT "producing source code for the public good" is NOT an
> option,
> the rest is up to debate. Once of the aspects of that debate is how
> dangerous
> (from a liability point of view) is it for us to produce certain kinds of
> non-essential
> artifacts.
> 
> Binary convenience artifacts certainly fall into that category in my book.
> 
> 
> >
> > > So let me make this proposal:
> > >    1. would it make sense for the risk assessment/risk-benefit part of
> > >       it to be moved to members@
> > >
> > >     I think this is now big enough to actually require members@
> > feedback.
> >
> > No, moving the conversation to members@apache would be completely
> > inappropriate because members@apache is not available to the public.
> >
> > Transparency is a fundamental value of the ASF.  There are many
> > stakeholders
> > in this discussion -- including all of our users!  We should not hide our
> > deliberations from them or deny them their say.
> >
> > Every bit of this conversation that can be public, *must* be public.  The
> > select few among us with access to members@apache are also welcome to
> > participate here.
> >
> 
> You misunderstood me. I was proposing to move the part where members get
> to discuss whether the benefits of producing binary convince artifacts
> outweight the potential legal liability of doing so.
> 
> That discussion is very much appropriate on members@ since, after all, those
> folks ARE the ASF.

Yes, the ASF is its members, but that's not a reason to keep the
discussion private.  It's merely a reason to post to members@ a pointer
to the discussion so interested members can join the list the discussion
is held on.  After all, all discussions should be public unless there's
a reason to keep them private.

Cheers,

Daniel

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


Mime
View raw message