Copyright issue, another vote? (was: [VOTE] Dealing with copyright issue (See ESME-47))

[Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@gmail.com>]

Hi,

On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Anne Kathrine Petterøe
<yo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...Should we have another vote with the new text which was suggested on the legal-list after we started this vote?...

I think so, if we want to be really clean we need another vote. We
should have waited a bit more.

> On 16 Jan, 2010, at 16:42 , Ethan Jewett wrote:
>
>> I'm for the "Portions Copyright..." wording. What I have no idea about
>> is whether that is a substantial enough change to require another
>> vote. Mentors?

IIUC, Bill Rowe's suggestion
(http://markmail.org/message/q6yweleer2voqvd3) is to

a) Have the Apache license block at the beginning of each source file
(i.e. before any additional copyright notices)

b) Where needed, follow that with the "Portions Copyright 2009
WorldWide Conferencing, LLC" notice. That would be in files where the
WorldWide Conferencing notice currently exists, except any files where
user dpp has not made any contributions (don't know if there are any).

c) Not add any mentions of this in the NOTICE file.

The rationale for c), as I understand it, is that the NOTICE file must
contain a minimum as downstream redistributions are required to keep
it intact. With b), we're clean w.r.t. David Pollak's refusal to
remove those notices, so I agree with c).

My suggestion would be to re-vote on a) b) c) above, including the
Incubator PMC right from the start of that vote.

Re-voting might sound a bit silly, but the whole thing is anyway...my
angle is that we want to solve this issue very cleanly so as to be
able to completely forget about it as soon as possible. So leave no
stone unturned right now, and get on with *useful work*.

-Bertrand

Re: Copyright issue, another vote? (was: [VOTE] Dealing with copyright issue (See ESME-47))

[Anne Kathrine Petterøe <yo...@gmail.com>]

Thanks, Bertrand. I also found Bill's suggestion clear and after following the whole discussion it made most sense to me. I will start another vote.

/Anne


On 19 Jan, 2010, at 11:46 , Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Anne Kathrine Petterøe
> <yo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ...Should we have another vote with the new text which was suggested on the legal-list after we started this vote?...
> 
> I think so, if we want to be really clean we need another vote. We
> should have waited a bit more.
> 
>> On 16 Jan, 2010, at 16:42 , Ethan Jewett wrote:
>> 
>>> I'm for the "Portions Copyright..." wording. What I have no idea about
>>> is whether that is a substantial enough change to require another
>>> vote. Mentors?
> 
> IIUC, Bill Rowe's suggestion
> (http://markmail.org/message/q6yweleer2voqvd3) is to
> 
> a) Have the Apache license block at the beginning of each source file
> (i.e. before any additional copyright notices)
> 
> b) Where needed, follow that with the "Portions Copyright 2009
> WorldWide Conferencing, LLC" notice. That would be in files where the
> WorldWide Conferencing notice currently exists, except any files where
> user dpp has not made any contributions (don't know if there are any).
> 
> c) Not add any mentions of this in the NOTICE file.
> 
> The rationale for c), as I understand it, is that the NOTICE file must
> contain a minimum as downstream redistributions are required to keep
> it intact. With b), we're clean w.r.t. David Pollak's refusal to
> remove those notices, so I agree with c).
> 
> My suggestion would be to re-vote on a) b) c) above, including the
> Incubator PMC right from the start of that vote.
> 
> Re-voting might sound a bit silly, but the whole thing is anyway...my
> angle is that we want to solve this issue very cleanly so as to be
> able to completely forget about it as soon as possible. So leave no
> stone unturned right now, and get on with *useful work*.
> 
> -Bertrand