www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
Subject Re: Binary channels
Date Fri, 01 Feb 2019 04:23:13 GMT
Sorry for coming to the thread rather late.

On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 8:03 PM Marvin Humphrey <marvin@rectangular.com>

> 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

Still, while NOT "producing source code for the public good" is NOT an
the rest is up to debate. Once of the aspects of that debate is how
(from a liability point of view) is it for us to produce certain kinds of

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
the potential legal liability of doing so.

That discussion is very much appropriate on members@ since, after all, those
folks ARE the ASF.


View raw message