From legal-discuss-return-15644-archive-asf-public=cust-asf.ponee.io@apache.org Sun Feb 3 13:23:48 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by mx-eu-01.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id 35946180626 for ; Sun, 3 Feb 2019 14:23:48 +0100 (CET) Received: (qmail 57568 invoked by uid 500); 3 Feb 2019 13:23:47 -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 57556 invoked by uid 99); 3 Feb 2019 13:23:46 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd3-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 03 Feb 2019 13:23:46 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd3-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd3-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 23B40181794 for ; Sun, 3 Feb 2019 13:23:46 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd3-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.699 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.699 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=1.5, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: spamd3-us-west.apache.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=daniel.shahaf.name header.b=A2p+gvaq; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=ly8A44SX Received: from mx1-lw-us.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd3-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.10]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bT5pYAvf_E_e for ; Sun, 3 Feb 2019 13:23:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) by mx1-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTPS id 1CC2C60DB3 for ; Sun, 3 Feb 2019 13:16:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id A95DE21DB2; Sun, 3 Feb 2019 08:16:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 03 Feb 2019 08:16:37 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= daniel.shahaf.name; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; s=fm2; bh=qm0Jf2lTpEZZ5v /r4tgHRdzVyOItSiyZbxesjo6kPYo=; b=A2p+gvaq7d9Bn6gPx67N9/IOY1F+8B FqxsMM90GwHNgNMkYx3aToRqjekTr3LglzjTxW9UvHfz9I/RIJVH7LvqPRyWj+k8 HjF/MHFgUXNcpIbxUTW0C9q7SWk65UoVKyrotABEaymigkJTWLGsiPOYH6z4BwjY EDGXczUJb0ffdzMPgYv0L30QBpxS5PKo9HYY7J+8yVnYtMQegVL51fgAutkSONbC XyLjlS8J8UuM9Ar09WbKQr0mPP4xetlkXjFigbho5EEamwb3WXTBE337zfRk0WuR tj9BT40h4mqVAyMcqGf7n0oa+/9VZqO2HNPsuA4yZJUOo2eKVDn108Yw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=qm0Jf2 lTpEZZ5v/r4tgHRdzVyOItSiyZbxesjo6kPYo=; b=ly8A44SXEvcDXsFpqbbAL9 jCpAslcIoLp6Eu8Dz25PfPyULUp2LZrLdMQOpuvBb1YsMohUCjY2YQJijKJVEMfJ zB2s55pEj8X65ZjaZhksPX+1xGZ74WvpSAJQUNtXj8ITaX0/+3UjDDoimZR6ubXN bRXjrQpFBIkVHsXhou6xC1JOvVhXz5gUxfZ6Zfz0kFQ1z5lZtPRV1C0hgjBMbBgh nSo7KjmLMXkAlv+0ONYA+Lp+OH3nRLsFm9FRmgkMzcZVX7nEix/Jxj+uGDFMAZey B7Vbps2rtsKEkEHVu75rb20R+9/7qeOSkiTThAqa9WkT4CzAOHjxlkRVLvh29Aow == X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedtledrkedvgdehvdcutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfhuthenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedt tdenucenucfjughrpeffhffvuffkfhggtggujggfsehttddttddtredvnecuhfhrohhmpe ffrghnihgvlhcuufhhrghhrghfuceougdrshesuggrnhhivghlrdhshhgrhhgrfhdrnhgr mhgvqeenucfkphepjeelrddukeefrdegkedrudelgeenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrh homhepugdrshesuggrnhhivghlrdhshhgrhhgrfhdrnhgrmhgvnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfu ihiivgeptd X-ME-Proxy: Received: from tarpaulin.shahaf.local2 (bzq-79-183-48-194.red.bezeqint.net [79.183.48.194]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id CBA8FE43B7 for ; Sun, 3 Feb 2019 08:16:36 -0500 (EST) Received: by tarpaulin.shahaf.local2 (Postfix, from userid 1005) id 43srvl0hxyzW4; Sun, 3 Feb 2019 13:16:35 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2019 13:16:35 +0000 From: Daniel Shahaf To: legal-discuss@apache.org Subject: Re: Binary channels Message-ID: <20190203131635.juafvo3jjk7okn52@tarpaulin.shahaf.local2> References: <817977CF-AA43-476B-85B5-F411BEBE79A1@classsoftware.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2) 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 > wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 6:50 PM Roman Shaposhnik > > 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