You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@esme.apache.org by Richard Hirsch <hi...@gmail.com> on 2010/01/12 14:04:12 UTC
[VOTE] Dealing with copyright issue (See ESME-47)
1. The following text will be added to the NOTICE file:
"This product contains software developed by David Pollak and licensed
to the Apache Software Foundation via a Contributor's License
Agreement. "
2. The wording of the copyright notice in the individuals files is currently:
"Copyright 2008-2009 WorldWide Conferencing, LLC"
This copyright notice will be changed to
"Copyright 2008-2009 WorldWide Conferencing, LLC (under David Pollak's CLA)"
For details, please see this legal-discuss mailing list thread:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201001.mbox/%3cf767f0601001110028n54d85d03xaf703119fa08df6e@mail.gmail.com%3e
Re: [VOTE] Dealing with copyright issue (See ESME-47)
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
+1 (IPMC). All this represents is a mild case of founder's syndrome.
We've seen it many times before at Apache. To keep the group focused
I suggest quickly getting past this issue and onto something productive,
like a fresh release of ESME.
----- Original Message ----
> From: Richard Hirsch <hi...@gmail.com>
> To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Tue, January 12, 2010 8:04:12 AM
> Subject: [VOTE] Dealing with copyright issue (See ESME-47)
>
> 1. The following text will be added to the NOTICE file:
>
> "This product contains software developed by David Pollak and licensed
> to the Apache Software Foundation via a Contributor's License
> Agreement. "
>
> 2. The wording of the copyright notice in the individuals files is currently:
> "Copyright 2008-2009 WorldWide Conferencing, LLC"
>
> This copyright notice will be changed to
> "Copyright 2008-2009 WorldWide Conferencing, LLC (under David Pollak's CLA)"
>
> For details, please see this legal-discuss mailing list thread:
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201001.mbox/%3cf767f0601001110028n54d85d03xaf703119fa08df6e@mail.gmail.com%3e
Re: [VOTE] Dealing with copyright issue (See ESME-47)
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
In that case it wouldn't hurt to notifiy general@incubator about
this issue, so I've ccd them. The skinny is that esme has had a
committer violate ASF policy on copyright notices in his commits
and he elected to resign instead of comply. ESME is mopping up
after him, and this is what they've decided to do. IPMC members
please consider hopping on esme-dev@ and expressing your +1 / -1 if
you feel the urge. Thanks.
----- Original Message ----
> From: Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>
> To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Tue, January 12, 2010 8:56:24 AM
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Dealing with copyright issue (See ESME-47)
>
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 2:15 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Richard Hirsch wrote:
> >> 1. The following text will be added to the NOTICE file:
> >>
> >> "This product contains software developed by David Pollak and licensed
> >> to the Apache Software Foundation via a Contributor's License
> >> Agreement. "
> >>
> >> 2. The wording of the copyright notice in the individuals files is currently:
> >> "Copyright 2008-2009 WorldWide Conferencing, LLC"
> >>
> >> This copyright notice will be changed to
> >> "Copyright 2008-2009 WorldWide Conferencing, LLC (under David Pollak's CLA)"
> >
> > +1
>
> Forgot to mention that I'm an Incubator PMC member as well - let's get
> at least 3 such votes (mentors please?) so that this is a decision of
> the Incubator PMC.
>
> -Bertrand
Re: [VOTE] Dealing with copyright issue (See ESME-47)
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
In that case it wouldn't hurt to notifiy general@incubator about
this issue, so I've ccd them. The skinny is that esme has had a
committer violate ASF policy on copyright notices in his commits
and he elected to resign instead of comply. ESME is mopping up
after him, and this is what they've decided to do. IPMC members
please consider hopping on esme-dev@ and expressing your +1 / -1 if
you feel the urge. Thanks.
----- Original Message ----
> From: Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>
> To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Tue, January 12, 2010 8:56:24 AM
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Dealing with copyright issue (See ESME-47)
>
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 2:15 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Richard Hirsch wrote:
> >> 1. The following text will be added to the NOTICE file:
> >>
> >> "This product contains software developed by David Pollak and licensed
> >> to the Apache Software Foundation via a Contributor's License
> >> Agreement. "
> >>
> >> 2. The wording of the copyright notice in the individuals files is currently:
> >> "Copyright 2008-2009 WorldWide Conferencing, LLC"
> >>
> >> This copyright notice will be changed to
> >> "Copyright 2008-2009 WorldWide Conferencing, LLC (under David Pollak's CLA)"
> >
> > +1
>
> Forgot to mention that I'm an Incubator PMC member as well - let's get
> at least 3 such votes (mentors please?) so that this is a decision of
> the Incubator PMC.
>
> -Bertrand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Dealing with copyright issue (See ESME-47)
Posted by Anne Kathrine Petterøe <yo...@gmail.com>.
I wasn't closing the vote, just posting the current status ;-)
/Anne
On 13. jan. 2010, at 11.17, Richard Hirsch wrote:
> Please note that the vote officially lasts 72 hours. We can't close
> the vote until then.
>
> D.
>
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 11:12 AM, Anne Kathrine Petterøe
> <yo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Just to sum up the vote so far.
>>
>> ESME PPMC +1: 6
>> IMPC +1: 3
>> IMPC -1: 1
>>
>> We would need one more IMPC +1 vote to ratify the ESME team vote right?
>>
>> /Anne
>>
>>
>>
>> On 13. jan. 2010, at 09.07, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 10:20 PM, Gianugo Rabellino
>>> <g....@sourcesense.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 4:23 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> ... In the future should this issue ever present itself to you,
>>>>> I hope you will do the proper thing and point the errant person
>>>>> at the relevant ASF policy
>>>>
>>>> That would be the same policy that says we _must_ remove copyright
>>>> notices from source files, right? The same policy that is now being
>>>> discarded in light of a compromise that makes very little sense and
>>>> sets a dangerous precedent?...
>>>
>>> I don't think we're discarding the policy.
>>>
>>> David is prevented from making any more commits that contradict this
>>> policy (as he left, but otherwise I would have asked for a vote to
>>> revoke his commit rights as suggested on the legal-disccus list), and
>>> we are treating the remaining copyright notices in the same way as
>>> we'd do for a committer that is no longer available (for any reason)
>>> to fix them themselves.
>>>
>>> Clarifying that we'd revoke people's commit rights if they refuse to
>>> abide by the policy that we're talking about
>>> (http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html) has been a positive
>>> outcome of this saga, IMHO.
>>>
>>> -Bertrand
>>
>>
Re: [VOTE] Dealing with copyright issue (See ESME-47)
Posted by Richard Hirsch <hi...@gmail.com>.
Please note that the vote officially lasts 72 hours. We can't close
the vote until then.
D.
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 11:12 AM, Anne Kathrine Petterøe
<yo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just to sum up the vote so far.
>
> ESME PPMC +1: 6
> IMPC +1: 3
> IMPC -1: 1
>
> We would need one more IMPC +1 vote to ratify the ESME team vote right?
>
> /Anne
>
>
>
> On 13. jan. 2010, at 09.07, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 10:20 PM, Gianugo Rabellino
>> <g....@sourcesense.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 4:23 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> ... In the future should this issue ever present itself to you,
>>>> I hope you will do the proper thing and point the errant person
>>>> at the relevant ASF policy
>>>
>>> That would be the same policy that says we _must_ remove copyright
>>> notices from source files, right? The same policy that is now being
>>> discarded in light of a compromise that makes very little sense and
>>> sets a dangerous precedent?...
>>
>> I don't think we're discarding the policy.
>>
>> David is prevented from making any more commits that contradict this
>> policy (as he left, but otherwise I would have asked for a vote to
>> revoke his commit rights as suggested on the legal-disccus list), and
>> we are treating the remaining copyright notices in the same way as
>> we'd do for a committer that is no longer available (for any reason)
>> to fix them themselves.
>>
>> Clarifying that we'd revoke people's commit rights if they refuse to
>> abide by the policy that we're talking about
>> (http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html) has been a positive
>> outcome of this saga, IMHO.
>>
>> -Bertrand
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Dealing with copyright issue (See ESME-47)
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
Hi Robert,
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 8:01 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
<ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 10:12 AM, Anne Kathrine Petterøe
> <yo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Just to sum up the vote so far.
>>
>> ESME PPMC +1: 6
>> IMPC +1: 3
>> IMPC -1: 1
>>
>> We would need one more IMPC +1 vote to ratify the ESME team vote right?
>
> i am -1 with legal team and IPMC hats on (due to phrasing)
>
> have you included me in the tally?...
This thread is the first vote on that subject, but since then a second
vote has been started, with slightly different phrasing. That's where
your -1 is, and that's not tallied yet.
See the "[VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)" thread on both esme-dev and
general@incubator - unfortunately not all messages are CCed to both
lists, so that's a bit confusing.
-Bertrand
Re: [VOTE] Dealing with copyright issue (See ESME-47)
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 10:12 AM, Anne Kathrine Petterøe
<yo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just to sum up the vote so far.
>
> ESME PPMC +1: 6
> IMPC +1: 3
> IMPC -1: 1
>
> We would need one more IMPC +1 vote to ratify the ESME team vote right?
i am -1 with legal team and IPMC hats on (due to phrasing)
have you included me in the tally?
- robert
Re: [VOTE] Dealing with copyright issue (See ESME-47)
Posted by Anne Kathrine Petterøe <yo...@gmail.com>.
Just to sum up the vote so far.
ESME PPMC +1: 6
IMPC +1: 3
IMPC -1: 1
We would need one more IMPC +1 vote to ratify the ESME team vote right?
/Anne
On 13. jan. 2010, at 09.07, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 10:20 PM, Gianugo Rabellino
> <g....@sourcesense.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 4:23 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> ... In the future should this issue ever present itself to you,
>>> I hope you will do the proper thing and point the errant person
>>> at the relevant ASF policy
>>
>> That would be the same policy that says we _must_ remove copyright
>> notices from source files, right? The same policy that is now being
>> discarded in light of a compromise that makes very little sense and
>> sets a dangerous precedent?...
>
> I don't think we're discarding the policy.
>
> David is prevented from making any more commits that contradict this
> policy (as he left, but otherwise I would have asked for a vote to
> revoke his commit rights as suggested on the legal-disccus list), and
> we are treating the remaining copyright notices in the same way as
> we'd do for a committer that is no longer available (for any reason)
> to fix them themselves.
>
> Clarifying that we'd revoke people's commit rights if they refuse to
> abide by the policy that we're talking about
> (http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html) has been a positive
> outcome of this saga, IMHO.
>
> -Bertrand
Re: [VOTE] Dealing with copyright issue (See ESME-47)
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 10:20 PM, Gianugo Rabellino
<g....@sourcesense.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 4:23 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>... In the future should this issue ever present itself to you,
>> I hope you will do the proper thing and point the errant person
>> at the relevant ASF policy
>
> That would be the same policy that says we _must_ remove copyright
> notices from source files, right? The same policy that is now being
> discarded in light of a compromise that makes very little sense and
> sets a dangerous precedent?...
I don't think we're discarding the policy.
David is prevented from making any more commits that contradict this
policy (as he left, but otherwise I would have asked for a vote to
revoke his commit rights as suggested on the legal-disccus list), and
we are treating the remaining copyright notices in the same way as
we'd do for a committer that is no longer available (for any reason)
to fix them themselves.
Clarifying that we'd revoke people's commit rights if they refuse to
abide by the policy that we're talking about
(http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html) has been a positive
outcome of this saga, IMHO.
-Bertrand
Re: [VOTE] Dealing with copyright issue (See ESME-47)
Posted by Anne Kathrine Petterøe <yo...@gmail.com>.
Any mentors out there?
What's next?
Should we have another vote with the new text which was suggested on the legal-list after we started this vote?
/Anne
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?
>
> Ethan
>
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 5:16 AM, Richard Hirsch <hi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Vote results after 3+ days:
>>
>> ESME PPMC +1: 6
>> IMPC +1: 3
>> IMPC -1: 1
>>
>> There has been further discussion / clairification on this issue on
>> the legal-discuss mailing list since this vote was initiated. In
>> particular, the post from William A. Rowe Jr. on Jan 13 and from Henri
>> Yandell yesterday. I'm unsure whether the suggestions in these two
>> posts have an impact on the changes that we are considering.
>>
>> In particular the suggestion of
>>
>> /*
>> * Portions Copyright 2009 WorldWide Conferencing, LLC
>> */
>>
>> rather than
>>
>> "Copyright 2008-2009 WorldWide Conferencing, LLC (under David Pollak's CLA)"
>>
>> which was the basis for this vote.
>>
>> D.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 7:57 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> ----- Original Message ----
>>>
>>>> From: Erik Engbrecht <er...@gmail.com>
>>>> To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>> Sent: Tue, January 12, 2010 10:40:43 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Dealing with copyright issue (See ESME-47)
>>>
>>> [... snip stuff I've addressed separately ...]
>>>
>>>> There is no question that many of David's principles are the anathema of
>>>> ASF's principles. That has been clear for a shockingly long time. But my
>>>> understanding is that legally there is no dispute. If the community is
>>>> going to put ASF principles aside in order to keep the code, then it should
>>>> just do it. Weaving principles into the discussion just introduces
>>>> ambiguity, prevents closure, and ultimately hampers the a developing
>>>> community's growth. This, I believe is what the leaders of the ESME
>>>> community just voted to do.
>>>>
>>>> Or the community can bite the bullet, stand by ASF principles even though it
>>>> appears to be legally unnecessary, and yank David's code.
>>>
>>> Looking over the original ESME proposal, one of the core reasons it was
>>> proffered to the ASF was to take advantage of the ASF's community-building
>>> experience. A good part of how we build communities here is to establish
>>> core values that most Apache projects share, and that people outside of the
>>> committer community can easily recognize and elect to be a part of.
>>>
>>> Amongst those values is the notion of equitable and fair treatment of all
>>> contributors to a project, be they PMC members, committers, or more outside
>>> participants. To be sure, meritocratic governance involves certain people
>>> expressing greater and lesser control over areas of the project where overall
>>> proficiency is mixed. But in the end people express themselves on open forums,
>>> largely using their vote, where *anyone* can constructively criticise their words,
>>> and where noone is barred from participation other than those who act to poison
>>> the commmunity. (I don't mean to suggest David is in the latter category here.)
>>>
>>> "Putting ASF principles aside" to me implies this community still has a
>>> number of lessons to learn about building an open ASF-style community.
>>> I personally don't view the current VOTE in that light- I think people
>>> are trying to do what is best, at least in the short term, for the project.
>>> Balancing the long-term interests of the project (and the org) is a more
>>> challenging question, and I see Gianugo's concerns here more along those lines.
>>> Trying to rationally address all relevant concerns is another important aspect
>>> of Apache-style decision making, but I think we've talked long enough on this
>>> VOTE thread.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
Re: [VOTE] Dealing with copyright issue (See ESME-47)
Posted by Ethan Jewett <es...@gmail.com>.
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?
Ethan
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 5:16 AM, Richard Hirsch <hi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Vote results after 3+ days:
>
> ESME PPMC +1: 6
> IMPC +1: 3
> IMPC -1: 1
>
> There has been further discussion / clairification on this issue on
> the legal-discuss mailing list since this vote was initiated. In
> particular, the post from William A. Rowe Jr. on Jan 13 and from Henri
> Yandell yesterday. I'm unsure whether the suggestions in these two
> posts have an impact on the changes that we are considering.
>
> In particular the suggestion of
>
> /*
> * Portions Copyright 2009 WorldWide Conferencing, LLC
> */
>
> rather than
>
> "Copyright 2008-2009 WorldWide Conferencing, LLC (under David Pollak's CLA)"
>
> which was the basis for this vote.
>
> D.
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 7:57 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> ----- Original Message ----
>>
>>> From: Erik Engbrecht <er...@gmail.com>
>>> To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> Sent: Tue, January 12, 2010 10:40:43 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Dealing with copyright issue (See ESME-47)
>>
>> [... snip stuff I've addressed separately ...]
>>
>>> There is no question that many of David's principles are the anathema of
>>> ASF's principles. That has been clear for a shockingly long time. But my
>>> understanding is that legally there is no dispute. If the community is
>>> going to put ASF principles aside in order to keep the code, then it should
>>> just do it. Weaving principles into the discussion just introduces
>>> ambiguity, prevents closure, and ultimately hampers the a developing
>>> community's growth. This, I believe is what the leaders of the ESME
>>> community just voted to do.
>>>
>>> Or the community can bite the bullet, stand by ASF principles even though it
>>> appears to be legally unnecessary, and yank David's code.
>>
>> Looking over the original ESME proposal, one of the core reasons it was
>> proffered to the ASF was to take advantage of the ASF's community-building
>> experience. A good part of how we build communities here is to establish
>> core values that most Apache projects share, and that people outside of the
>> committer community can easily recognize and elect to be a part of.
>>
>> Amongst those values is the notion of equitable and fair treatment of all
>> contributors to a project, be they PMC members, committers, or more outside
>> participants. To be sure, meritocratic governance involves certain people
>> expressing greater and lesser control over areas of the project where overall
>> proficiency is mixed. But in the end people express themselves on open forums,
>> largely using their vote, where *anyone* can constructively criticise their words,
>> and where noone is barred from participation other than those who act to poison
>> the commmunity. (I don't mean to suggest David is in the latter category here.)
>>
>> "Putting ASF principles aside" to me implies this community still has a
>> number of lessons to learn about building an open ASF-style community.
>> I personally don't view the current VOTE in that light- I think people
>> are trying to do what is best, at least in the short term, for the project.
>> Balancing the long-term interests of the project (and the org) is a more
>> challenging question, and I see Gianugo's concerns here more along those lines.
>> Trying to rationally address all relevant concerns is another important aspect
>> of Apache-style decision making, but I think we've talked long enough on this
>> VOTE thread.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] Dealing with copyright issue (See ESME-47)
Posted by Richard Hirsch <hi...@gmail.com>.
Vote results after 3+ days:
ESME PPMC +1: 6
IMPC +1: 3
IMPC -1: 1
There has been further discussion / clairification on this issue on
the legal-discuss mailing list since this vote was initiated. In
particular, the post from William A. Rowe Jr. on Jan 13 and from Henri
Yandell yesterday. I'm unsure whether the suggestions in these two
posts have an impact on the changes that we are considering.
In particular the suggestion of
/*
* Portions Copyright 2009 WorldWide Conferencing, LLC
*/
rather than
"Copyright 2008-2009 WorldWide Conferencing, LLC (under David Pollak's CLA)"
which was the basis for this vote.
D.
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 7:57 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----
>
>> From: Erik Engbrecht <er...@gmail.com>
>> To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Sent: Tue, January 12, 2010 10:40:43 PM
>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Dealing with copyright issue (See ESME-47)
>
> [... snip stuff I've addressed separately ...]
>
>> There is no question that many of David's principles are the anathema of
>> ASF's principles. That has been clear for a shockingly long time. But my
>> understanding is that legally there is no dispute. If the community is
>> going to put ASF principles aside in order to keep the code, then it should
>> just do it. Weaving principles into the discussion just introduces
>> ambiguity, prevents closure, and ultimately hampers the a developing
>> community's growth. This, I believe is what the leaders of the ESME
>> community just voted to do.
>>
>> Or the community can bite the bullet, stand by ASF principles even though it
>> appears to be legally unnecessary, and yank David's code.
>
> Looking over the original ESME proposal, one of the core reasons it was
> proffered to the ASF was to take advantage of the ASF's community-building
> experience. A good part of how we build communities here is to establish
> core values that most Apache projects share, and that people outside of the
> committer community can easily recognize and elect to be a part of.
>
> Amongst those values is the notion of equitable and fair treatment of all
> contributors to a project, be they PMC members, committers, or more outside
> participants. To be sure, meritocratic governance involves certain people
> expressing greater and lesser control over areas of the project where overall
> proficiency is mixed. But in the end people express themselves on open forums,
> largely using their vote, where *anyone* can constructively criticise their words,
> and where noone is barred from participation other than those who act to poison
> the commmunity. (I don't mean to suggest David is in the latter category here.)
>
> "Putting ASF principles aside" to me implies this community still has a
> number of lessons to learn about building an open ASF-style community.
> I personally don't view the current VOTE in that light- I think people
> are trying to do what is best, at least in the short term, for the project.
> Balancing the long-term interests of the project (and the org) is a more
> challenging question, and I see Gianugo's concerns here more along those lines.
> Trying to rationally address all relevant concerns is another important aspect
> of Apache-style decision making, but I think we've talked long enough on this
> VOTE thread.
>
>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Dealing with copyright issue (See ESME-47)
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
----- Original Message ----
> From: Erik Engbrecht <er...@gmail.com>
> To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Tue, January 12, 2010 10:40:43 PM
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Dealing with copyright issue (See ESME-47)
[... snip stuff I've addressed separately ...]
> There is no question that many of David's principles are the anathema of
> ASF's principles. That has been clear for a shockingly long time. But my
> understanding is that legally there is no dispute. If the community is
> going to put ASF principles aside in order to keep the code, then it should
> just do it. Weaving principles into the discussion just introduces
> ambiguity, prevents closure, and ultimately hampers the a developing
> community's growth. This, I believe is what the leaders of the ESME
> community just voted to do.
>
> Or the community can bite the bullet, stand by ASF principles even though it
> appears to be legally unnecessary, and yank David's code.
Looking over the original ESME proposal, one of the core reasons it was
proffered to the ASF was to take advantage of the ASF's community-building
experience. A good part of how we build communities here is to establish
core values that most Apache projects share, and that people outside of the
committer community can easily recognize and elect to be a part of.
Amongst those values is the notion of equitable and fair treatment of all
contributors to a project, be they PMC members, committers, or more outside
participants. To be sure, meritocratic governance involves certain people
expressing greater and lesser control over areas of the project where overall
proficiency is mixed. But in the end people express themselves on open forums,
largely using their vote, where *anyone* can constructively criticise their words,
and where noone is barred from participation other than those who act to poison
the commmunity. (I don't mean to suggest David is in the latter category here.)
"Putting ASF principles aside" to me implies this community still has a
number of lessons to learn about building an open ASF-style community.
I personally don't view the current VOTE in that light- I think people
are trying to do what is best, at least in the short term, for the project.
Balancing the long-term interests of the project (and the org) is a more
challenging question, and I see Gianugo's concerns here more along those lines.
Trying to rationally address all relevant concerns is another important aspect
of Apache-style decision making, but I think we've talked long enough on this
VOTE thread.
Re: [VOTE] Dealing with copyright issue (See ESME-47)
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
----- Original Message ----
> From: Erik Engbrecht <er...@gmail.com>
> To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Tue, January 12, 2010 10:40:43 PM
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Dealing with copyright issue (See ESME-47)
>
> I think the difference between "crystal clean" and "NASCAR approach" is a
> matter of perspective, because, as you said, some people are interested in
> being able to relicense their work, and, for that matter, the work of others
> as well. From David's perspective I believe "crystal clean" means a single
> legal entity (and one that has trusts, at that) has the undisputed power to
> relicense the code base.
Then David is wrong, because the ICLA grants the ASF that power as well.
Re: [VOTE] Dealing with copyright issue (See ESME-47)
Posted by Erik Engbrecht <er...@gmail.com>.
I think the difference between "crystal clean" and "NASCAR approach" is a
matter of perspective, because, as you said, some people are interested in
being able to relicense their work, and, for that matter, the work of others
as well. From David's perspective I believe "crystal clean" means a single
legal entity (and one that has trusts, at that) has the undisputed power to
relicense the code base.
There is no question that many of David's principles are the anathema of
ASF's principles. That has been clear for a shockingly long time. But my
understanding is that legally there is no dispute. If the community is
going to put ASF principles aside in order to keep the code, then it should
just do it. Weaving principles into the discussion just introduces
ambiguity, prevents closure, and ultimately hampers the a developing
community's growth. This, I believe is what the leaders of the ESME
community just voted to do.
Or the community can bite the bullet, stand by ASF principles even though it
appears to be legally unnecessary, and yank David's code.
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 9:19 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----
>
> > From: Erik Engbrecht <er...@gmail.com>
> > To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Sent: Tue, January 12, 2010 8:22:17 PM
> > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Dealing with copyright issue (See ESME-47)
> >
> > I don't know if this will add anything to the conversation, but...
> >
> > I think David's concern is that, if wishes, he is able to reconstruct a
> > version of ESME where WorldWide Conferencing, LLC holds copyright to the
> > entirety, and he doesn't want there to be anything out there that some
> piece
> > of that reconstruction no longer belongs to WorldWide Conferencing, LLC
> > because it was transferred to ASF. He's very, very stringent about
> keeping
> > the IP in his projects crystal clean and owned by his holding company.
> This
> > is about what rights David has, not what rights ASF has, beyond David
> > feeling ASF does not have the right to do anything that might cast doubt
> on
> > his ownership of his contributions.
>
> Reading the recent archives of this mailing list doesn't leave me with that
> impression. I get the sense David's idea of how to treat IP is the NASCAR
> approach, where everyone adds their own copyright statement to whatever
> source
> files they happen to touch. That is common in the FSF world, where people
> are
> quite interested in relicensing their individual work to third parties. It
> is
> anathema here, because we tend to view a project's codebase as the
> community's
> intellectual commons.
>
>
>
>
--
http://erikengbrecht.blogspot.com/
Re: [VOTE] Dealing with copyright issue (See ESME-47)
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
----- Original Message ----
> From: Erik Engbrecht <er...@gmail.com>
> To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Tue, January 12, 2010 8:22:17 PM
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Dealing with copyright issue (See ESME-47)
>
> I don't know if this will add anything to the conversation, but...
>
> I think David's concern is that, if wishes, he is able to reconstruct a
> version of ESME where WorldWide Conferencing, LLC holds copyright to the
> entirety, and he doesn't want there to be anything out there that some piece
> of that reconstruction no longer belongs to WorldWide Conferencing, LLC
> because it was transferred to ASF. He's very, very stringent about keeping
> the IP in his projects crystal clean and owned by his holding company. This
> is about what rights David has, not what rights ASF has, beyond David
> feeling ASF does not have the right to do anything that might cast doubt on
> his ownership of his contributions.
Reading the recent archives of this mailing list doesn't leave me with that
impression. I get the sense David's idea of how to treat IP is the NASCAR
approach, where everyone adds their own copyright statement to whatever source
files they happen to touch. That is common in the FSF world, where people are
quite interested in relicensing their individual work to third parties. It is
anathema here, because we tend to view a project's codebase as the community's
intellectual commons.
Re: [VOTE] Dealing with copyright issue (See ESME-47)
Posted by Erik Engbrecht <er...@gmail.com>.
I don't know if this will add anything to the conversation, but...
I think David's concern is that, if wishes, he is able to reconstruct a
version of ESME where WorldWide Conferencing, LLC holds copyright to the
entirety, and he doesn't want there to be anything out there that some piece
of that reconstruction no longer belongs to WorldWide Conferencing, LLC
because it was transferred to ASF. He's very, very stringent about keeping
the IP in his projects crystal clean and owned by his holding company. This
is about what rights David has, not what rights ASF has, beyond David
feeling ASF does not have the right to do anything that might cast doubt on
his ownership of his contributions.
I also think he consider's "his contributions" to be anything to which
Worldwide Conferencing, LLC held copyright when it was donated to ASF,
whether he was the author of not.
Just like ASF would consider yanking David's contributions from the ESME
code base because he's done something to cast doubt on whether they were
appropriately made, David is making sure ASF doesn't do anything to cast
doubts on his ownership.
I think Ethan's right, David is trying to be painstackingly clear in his
wording.
I'd make sure you're language is tight and makes both ASF's and David's
rights clear, wait a week to make sure you're talking to
David-the-programmer/lawyer, not David-the-rockstar, and have Anne or Dick
contact him with whatever you decide and request constructive suggestions
regarding any issues he has. I think he'll be reasonable.
Just my 2 cents as an observer...
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 7:37 PM, Ethan Jewett <es...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 6:47 PM, Gianugo Rabellino
> <g....@sourcesense.com> wrote:
>
> > [...] Although I would
> > argue that no one pointed out the scary elephant in the room, that is
> > the fact that it is unclear whether David intended to contribute his
> > code under the ICLA or under the AL. I'm still wary of signing off a
> > release where, at a very least, we have to force our hand and make a
> > decision on someone else's IP that while likely being licensed to us
> > properly, maybe it's not.
>
> I think it's quite clear that David is licensing his copyright under
> the CLA, not under the Apache license. To quote from his resignation
> email:
>
> "PS -- My resignation in no way abrogates any rights in the
> copywritten materials that I have licensed to the ASF under my CLA"
>
> It's possible that originally David was under the impression that the
> CLA license contained exactly the same restrictions as the Apache 2.0
> license, which is not the case. However, I think he clarified that for
> himself, or more likely meant something entirely different than what
> was construed in the original discussion. In this case he's being
> painstakingly clear in his wording.
>
> Ethan
>
--
http://erikengbrecht.blogspot.com/
Re: [VOTE] Dealing with copyright issue (See ESME-47)
Posted by Gianugo Rabellino <g....@sourcesense.com>.
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 1:37 AM, Ethan Jewett <es...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 6:47 PM, Gianugo Rabellino
> <g....@sourcesense.com> wrote:
>
>> [...] Although I would
>> argue that no one pointed out the scary elephant in the room, that is
>> the fact that it is unclear whether David intended to contribute his
>> code under the ICLA or under the AL. I'm still wary of signing off a
>> release where, at a very least, we have to force our hand and make a
>> decision on someone else's IP that while likely being licensed to us
>> properly, maybe it's not.
>
> I think it's quite clear that David is licensing his copyright under
> the CLA, not under the Apache license. To quote from his resignation
> email:
>
> "PS -- My resignation in no way abrogates any rights in the
> copywritten materials that I have licensed to the ASF under my CLA"
>
> It's possible that originally David was under the impression that the
> CLA license contained exactly the same restrictions as the Apache 2.0
> license, which is not the case. However, I think he clarified that for
> himself, or more likely meant something entirely different than what
> was construed in the original discussion. In this case he's being
> painstakingly clear in his wording.
If everyone here is happy with a strong and explicit previous claim,
followed by a mild concession in the context of negative phrasing (not
abrogating any right), I'm fine. But I'd rather have something more
explicit in that direction.
--
Gianugo Rabellino
M: +44 779 5364 932 / +39 389 44 26 846
Sourcesense - making sense of Open Source: http://www.sourcesense.com
Re: [VOTE] Dealing with copyright issue (See ESME-47)
Posted by Ethan Jewett <es...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 6:47 PM, Gianugo Rabellino
<g....@sourcesense.com> wrote:
> [...] Although I would
> argue that no one pointed out the scary elephant in the room, that is
> the fact that it is unclear whether David intended to contribute his
> code under the ICLA or under the AL. I'm still wary of signing off a
> release where, at a very least, we have to force our hand and make a
> decision on someone else's IP that while likely being licensed to us
> properly, maybe it's not.
I think it's quite clear that David is licensing his copyright under
the CLA, not under the Apache license. To quote from his resignation
email:
"PS -- My resignation in no way abrogates any rights in the
copywritten materials that I have licensed to the ASF under my CLA"
It's possible that originally David was under the impression that the
CLA license contained exactly the same restrictions as the Apache 2.0
license, which is not the case. However, I think he clarified that for
himself, or more likely meant something entirely different than what
was construed in the original discussion. In this case he's being
painstakingly clear in his wording.
Ethan
Re: [VOTE] Dealing with copyright issue (See ESME-47)
Posted by Gianugo Rabellino <g....@sourcesense.com>.
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 11:03 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> From: Gianugo Rabellino <g....@sourcesense.com>
>> To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Sent: Tue, January 12, 2010 4:54:14 PM
>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Dealing with copyright issue (See ESME-47)
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 10:44 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>> >> From: Gianugo Rabellino
>> >> To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> >> Sent: Tue, January 12, 2010 4:35:44 PM
>> >> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Dealing with copyright issue (See ESME-47)
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 10:31 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>> >> > ----- Original Message ----
>> >> >
>> >> >> From: Gianugo Rabellino
>> >> >> To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> >> >> Sent: Tue, January 12, 2010 4:20:14 PM
>> >> >> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Dealing with copyright issue (See ESME-47)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 4:23 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>> >> >> > I'm hoping another lengthy diatribe from you won't be
>> >> >> > necessary. While I don't blame you for David's disappearance,
>> >> >> > the reason we bother to document policy is so people don't
>> >> >> > need to get creative with their legal understanding of how the ASF
>> works.
>> >> >> > In the future should this issue ever present itself to you,
>> >> >> > I hope you will do the proper thing and point the errant person
>> >> >> > at the relevant ASF policy
>> >> >>
>> >> >> That would be the same policy that says we _must_ remove copyright
>> >> >> notices from source files, right?
>> >> >
>> >> > Technically it says the copyright holder must do that, not the ASF.
>> >>
>> >> Oh, please - let's not go there. The fact that the policy misses a (4)
>> >> remove the file in question still doesn't mean the "must" is
>> >> irrelevant. That would be playing with words.
>> >
>> > The policy isn't lacking that. The issue is simple- how to treat commits
>> > that are licensed to us properly but fail to follow policy? The answer
>> > is simple, either the committer modifies those commits to comply with policy
>> > or his commit access will be revoked and the committed code will be subject
>> > to third-party treatment. In this case the project has elected to be slightly
>> > more accurate with the situation, but they have done no harm to the org
>> > nor the committer in question by doing so.
>>
>> There would be a lot to comment on you interpolating the policy text,
>> for a start.
>
> It's not just me, Geir basically told them the same thing on legal-discuss@.
In all honesty, I think the discussion on l-d kind of drifted towards
the current conclusion, with no one pointing out how inconsistent it
is with the actual policy (my bad: I'm currently being held hostage in
a building where I'm not allowed to bring a laptop, so I was unable to
point that out).
>> Maybe it's just better we all forget about this mishap,
>> otherwise we are going to spend the next few days arguing about the
>> wording of a policy that, to me, is now just a simple guideline. I
>> guess I'll just sit here, hoping the day will never come where I will
>> have to pull a told-you-so.
>
> Were this a project I was a committer on, I would probably vote to bite the
> bullet and pull the commits in question as I don't believe people should be
> rewarding for taking a dump on community property. But this is an incubating
> project trying to get some code out the door, and is free to make its own
> policy-aligned choices.
In addition to your very good point on David getting way more
recognition than others who contributed much more to Apache, I believe
we are not doing ESME a good service by imposing them a baggage they
will have to deal with in the future, when the can of worms of having
inconsistent (c) notices will surface and people will be scared to
touch a single line of notices that are not accurate anymore as source
code evolves yet represent a social/policy/legal minefield. Then
again, it seems it's just me so I'll rest my case. Although I would
argue that no one pointed out the scary elephant in the room, that is
the fact that it is unclear whether David intended to contribute his
code under the ICLA or under the AL. I'm still wary of signing off a
release where, at a very least, we have to force our hand and make a
decision on someone else's IP that while likely being licensed to us
properly, maybe it's not.
--
Gianugo Rabellino
M: +44 779 5364 932 / +39 389 44 26 846
Sourcesense - making sense of Open Source: http://www.sourcesense.com
Re: [VOTE] Dealing with copyright issue (See ESME-47)
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
----- Original Message ----
> From: Gianugo Rabellino <g....@sourcesense.com>
> To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Tue, January 12, 2010 4:54:14 PM
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Dealing with copyright issue (See ESME-47)
>
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 10:44 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> >> From: Gianugo Rabellino
> >> To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> Sent: Tue, January 12, 2010 4:35:44 PM
> >> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Dealing with copyright issue (See ESME-47)
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 10:31 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> >> > ----- Original Message ----
> >> >
> >> >> From: Gianugo Rabellino
> >> >> To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> >> Sent: Tue, January 12, 2010 4:20:14 PM
> >> >> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Dealing with copyright issue (See ESME-47)
> >> >>
> >> >> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 4:23 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> >> >> > I'm hoping another lengthy diatribe from you won't be
> >> >> > necessary. While I don't blame you for David's disappearance,
> >> >> > the reason we bother to document policy is so people don't
> >> >> > need to get creative with their legal understanding of how the ASF
> works.
> >> >> > In the future should this issue ever present itself to you,
> >> >> > I hope you will do the proper thing and point the errant person
> >> >> > at the relevant ASF policy
> >> >>
> >> >> That would be the same policy that says we _must_ remove copyright
> >> >> notices from source files, right?
> >> >
> >> > Technically it says the copyright holder must do that, not the ASF.
> >>
> >> Oh, please - let's not go there. The fact that the policy misses a (4)
> >> remove the file in question still doesn't mean the "must" is
> >> irrelevant. That would be playing with words.
> >
> > The policy isn't lacking that. The issue is simple- how to treat commits
> > that are licensed to us properly but fail to follow policy? The answer
> > is simple, either the committer modifies those commits to comply with policy
> > or his commit access will be revoked and the committed code will be subject
> > to third-party treatment. In this case the project has elected to be slightly
> > more accurate with the situation, but they have done no harm to the org
> > nor the committer in question by doing so.
>
> There would be a lot to comment on you interpolating the policy text,
> for a start.
It's not just me, Geir basically told them the same thing on legal-discuss@.
> Maybe it's just better we all forget about this mishap,
> otherwise we are going to spend the next few days arguing about the
> wording of a policy that, to me, is now just a simple guideline. I
> guess I'll just sit here, hoping the day will never come where I will
> have to pull a told-you-so.
Were this a project I was a committer on, I would probably vote to bite the
bullet and pull the commits in question as I don't believe people should be
rewarding for taking a dump on community property. But this is an incubating
project trying to get some code out the door, and is free to make its own
policy-aligned choices.
Re: [VOTE] Dealing with copyright issue (See ESME-47)
Posted by Gianugo Rabellino <g....@sourcesense.com>.
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 10:44 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> From: Gianugo Rabellino <g....@sourcesense.com>
>> To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Sent: Tue, January 12, 2010 4:35:44 PM
>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Dealing with copyright issue (See ESME-47)
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 10:31 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>> > ----- Original Message ----
>> >
>> >> From: Gianugo Rabellino
>> >> To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> >> Sent: Tue, January 12, 2010 4:20:14 PM
>> >> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Dealing with copyright issue (See ESME-47)
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 4:23 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>> >> > I'm hoping another lengthy diatribe from you won't be
>> >> > necessary. While I don't blame you for David's disappearance,
>> >> > the reason we bother to document policy is so people don't
>> >> > need to get creative with their legal understanding of how the ASF works.
>> >> > In the future should this issue ever present itself to you,
>> >> > I hope you will do the proper thing and point the errant person
>> >> > at the relevant ASF policy
>> >>
>> >> That would be the same policy that says we _must_ remove copyright
>> >> notices from source files, right?
>> >
>> > Technically it says the copyright holder must do that, not the ASF.
>>
>> Oh, please - let's not go there. The fact that the policy misses a (4)
>> remove the file in question still doesn't mean the "must" is
>> irrelevant. That would be playing with words.
>
> The policy isn't lacking that. The issue is simple- how to treat commits
> that are licensed to us properly but fail to follow policy? The answer
> is simple, either the committer modifies those commits to comply with policy
> or his commit access will be revoked and the committed code will be subject
> to third-party treatment. In this case the project has elected to be slightly
> more accurate with the situation, but they have done no harm to the org
> nor the committer in question by doing so.
There would be a lot to comment on you interpolating the policy text,
for a start. Maybe it's just better we all forget about this mishap,
otherwise we are going to spend the next few days arguing about the
wording of a policy that, to me, is now just a simple guideline. I
guess I'll just sit here, hoping the day will never come where I will
have to pull a told-you-so.
--
Gianugo Rabellino
M: +44 779 5364 932 / +39 389 44 26 846
Sourcesense - making sense of Open Source: http://www.sourcesense.com
Re: [VOTE] Dealing with copyright issue (See ESME-47)
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
----- Original Message ----
> From: Gianugo Rabellino <g....@sourcesense.com>
> To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Tue, January 12, 2010 4:35:44 PM
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Dealing with copyright issue (See ESME-47)
>
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 10:31 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> > ----- Original Message ----
> >
> >> From: Gianugo Rabellino
> >> To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> Sent: Tue, January 12, 2010 4:20:14 PM
> >> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Dealing with copyright issue (See ESME-47)
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 4:23 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> >> > I'm hoping another lengthy diatribe from you won't be
> >> > necessary. While I don't blame you for David's disappearance,
> >> > the reason we bother to document policy is so people don't
> >> > need to get creative with their legal understanding of how the ASF works.
> >> > In the future should this issue ever present itself to you,
> >> > I hope you will do the proper thing and point the errant person
> >> > at the relevant ASF policy
> >>
> >> That would be the same policy that says we _must_ remove copyright
> >> notices from source files, right?
> >
> > Technically it says the copyright holder must do that, not the ASF.
>
> Oh, please - let's not go there. The fact that the policy misses a (4)
> remove the file in question still doesn't mean the "must" is
> irrelevant. That would be playing with words.
The policy isn't lacking that. The issue is simple- how to treat commits
that are licensed to us properly but fail to follow policy? The answer
is simple, either the committer modifies those commits to comply with policy
or his commit access will be revoked and the committed code will be subject
to third-party treatment. In this case the project has elected to be slightly
more accurate with the situation, but they have done no harm to the org
nor the committer in question by doing so.
Re: [VOTE] Dealing with copyright issue (See ESME-47)
Posted by Gianugo Rabellino <g....@sourcesense.com>.
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 10:31 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----
>
>> From: Gianugo Rabellino <g....@sourcesense.com>
>> To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Sent: Tue, January 12, 2010 4:20:14 PM
>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Dealing with copyright issue (See ESME-47)
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 4:23 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>> > I'm hoping another lengthy diatribe from you won't be
>> > necessary. While I don't blame you for David's disappearance,
>> > the reason we bother to document policy is so people don't
>> > need to get creative with their legal understanding of how the ASF works.
>> > In the future should this issue ever present itself to you,
>> > I hope you will do the proper thing and point the errant person
>> > at the relevant ASF policy
>>
>> That would be the same policy that says we _must_ remove copyright
>> notices from source files, right?
>
> Technically it says the copyright holder must do that, not the ASF.
Oh, please - let's not go there. The fact that the policy misses a (4)
remove the file in question still doesn't mean the "must" is
irrelevant. That would be playing with words.
>> The same policy that is now being
>> discarded in light of a compromise that makes very little sense and
>> sets a dangerous precedent?
>
> It is neither a compromise nor a precedent. It is a decision
> in line with ASF policy and made by the project (and apparently
> supported by members of the IPMC).
I can only respect your opinion, and respectfully disagree. I hope you
will do the same and accept that I'm worried we are opening a backdoor
where the next David Pollack might argue that he shouldn't remove
copyright notices as there is evidence of a policy being ignored in
the past.
--
Gianugo Rabellino
M: +44 779 5364 932 / +39 389 44 26 846
Sourcesense - making sense of Open Source: http://www.sourcesense.com
Re: [VOTE] Dealing with copyright issue (See ESME-47)
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
----- Original Message ----
> From: Gianugo Rabellino <g....@sourcesense.com>
> To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Tue, January 12, 2010 4:20:14 PM
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Dealing with copyright issue (See ESME-47)
>
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 4:23 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> > I'm hoping another lengthy diatribe from you won't be
> > necessary. While I don't blame you for David's disappearance,
> > the reason we bother to document policy is so people don't
> > need to get creative with their legal understanding of how the ASF works.
> > In the future should this issue ever present itself to you,
> > I hope you will do the proper thing and point the errant person
> > at the relevant ASF policy
>
> That would be the same policy that says we _must_ remove copyright
> notices from source files, right?
Technically it says the copyright holder must do that, not the ASF.
I personally don't believe there are any statutory issues with moving
the copyright notice to NOTICE, and am certain it's not a tort to do that.
But the policy in question doesn't cover that act. If you'd like it
to cover that, this is the wrong list for that conversation.
> The same policy that is now being
> discarded in light of a compromise that makes very little sense and
> sets a dangerous precedent?
It is neither a compromise nor a precedent. It is a decision
in line with ASF policy and made by the project (and apparently
supported by members of the IPMC).
> No, I guess I have very little to add. But don't ask for my +1.
Trust me I wasn't.
Re: [VOTE] Dealing with copyright issue (See ESME-47)
Posted by Gianugo Rabellino <g....@sourcesense.com>.
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 4:23 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I'm hoping another lengthy diatribe from you won't be
> necessary. While I don't blame you for David's disappearance,
> the reason we bother to document policy is so people don't
> need to get creative with their legal understanding of how the ASF works.
> In the future should this issue ever present itself to you,
> I hope you will do the proper thing and point the errant person
> at the relevant ASF policy
That would be the same policy that says we _must_ remove copyright
notices from source files, right? The same policy that is now being
discarded in light of a compromise that makes very little sense and
sets a dangerous precedent?
No, I guess I have very little to add. But don't ask for my +1.
--
Gianugo Rabellino
M: +44 779 5364 932 / +39 389 44 26 846
Sourcesense - making sense of Open Source: http://www.sourcesense.com
Re: [VOTE] Dealing with copyright issue (See ESME-47)
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
I'm hoping another lengthy diatribe from you won't be
necessary. While I don't blame you for David's disappearance,
the reason we bother to document policy is so people don't
need to get creative with their legal understanding of how the ASF works.
In the future should this issue ever present itself to you,
I hope you will do the proper thing and point the errant person
at the relevant ASF policy document instead of using your law
background to engage them in legal arguments.
----- Original Message ----
> From: Gianugo Rabellino <g....@sourcesense.com>
> To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Tue, January 12, 2010 9:42:35 AM
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Dealing with copyright issue (See ESME-47)
>
> I'm unable to send a long reply. Let me just anticipate my
> non-vetoeing -1. Reasons to follow in a few hours.
>
> --
> Gianugo
>
> On Tuesday, January 12, 2010, Bertrand Delacretaz
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 2:15 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> > wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Richard Hirsch
> wrote:
> >>> 1. The following text will be added to the NOTICE file:
> >>>
> >>> "This product contains software developed by David Pollak and licensed
> >>> to the Apache Software Foundation via a Contributor's License
> >>> Agreement. "
> >>>
> >>> 2. The wording of the copyright notice in the individuals files is
> currently:
> >>> "Copyright 2008-2009 WorldWide Conferencing, LLC"
> >>>
> >>> This copyright notice will be changed to
> >>> "Copyright 2008-2009 WorldWide Conferencing, LLC (under David Pollak's
> CLA)"
> >>
> >> +1
> >
> > Forgot to mention that I'm an Incubator PMC member as well - let's get
> > at least 3 such votes (mentors please?) so that this is a decision of
> > the Incubator PMC.
> >
> > -Bertrand
> >
>
> --
> Gianugo Rabellino
> M: +44 779 5364 932 / +39 389 44 26 846
> Sourcesense - making sense of Open Source: http://www.sourcesense.com
Re: [VOTE] Dealing with copyright issue (See ESME-47)
Posted by Gianugo Rabellino <g....@sourcesense.com>.
I'm unable to send a long reply. Let me just anticipate my
non-vetoeing -1. Reasons to follow in a few hours.
--
Gianugo
On Tuesday, January 12, 2010, Bertrand Delacretaz
<bd...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 2:15 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> <bd...@apache.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Richard Hirsch <hi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 1. The following text will be added to the NOTICE file:
>>>
>>> "This product contains software developed by David Pollak and licensed
>>> to the Apache Software Foundation via a Contributor's License
>>> Agreement. "
>>>
>>> 2. The wording of the copyright notice in the individuals files is currently:
>>> "Copyright 2008-2009 WorldWide Conferencing, LLC"
>>>
>>> This copyright notice will be changed to
>>> "Copyright 2008-2009 WorldWide Conferencing, LLC (under David Pollak's CLA)"
>>
>> +1
>
> Forgot to mention that I'm an Incubator PMC member as well - let's get
> at least 3 such votes (mentors please?) so that this is a decision of
> the Incubator PMC.
>
> -Bertrand
>
--
Gianugo Rabellino
M: +44 779 5364 932 / +39 389 44 26 846
Sourcesense - making sense of Open Source: http://www.sourcesense.com
Re: [VOTE] Dealing with copyright issue (See ESME-47)
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 2:15 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
<bd...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Richard Hirsch <hi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 1. The following text will be added to the NOTICE file:
>>
>> "This product contains software developed by David Pollak and licensed
>> to the Apache Software Foundation via a Contributor's License
>> Agreement. "
>>
>> 2. The wording of the copyright notice in the individuals files is currently:
>> "Copyright 2008-2009 WorldWide Conferencing, LLC"
>>
>> This copyright notice will be changed to
>> "Copyright 2008-2009 WorldWide Conferencing, LLC (under David Pollak's CLA)"
>
> +1
Forgot to mention that I'm an Incubator PMC member as well - let's get
at least 3 such votes (mentors please?) so that this is a decision of
the Incubator PMC.
-Bertrand
Re: [VOTE] Dealing with copyright issue (See ESME-47)
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Richard Hirsch <hi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 1. The following text will be added to the NOTICE file:
>
> "This product contains software developed by David Pollak and licensed
> to the Apache Software Foundation via a Contributor's License
> Agreement. "
>
> 2. The wording of the copyright notice in the individuals files is currently:
> "Copyright 2008-2009 WorldWide Conferencing, LLC"
>
> This copyright notice will be changed to
> "Copyright 2008-2009 WorldWide Conferencing, LLC (under David Pollak's CLA)"
+1
-Bertrand
Re: [VOTE] Dealing with copyright issue (See ESME-47)
Posted by Mrinal Wadhwa <mr...@gmail.com>.
+1
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 7:59 PM, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> +1 (IPMC binding)
>
>
> Dan
>
> On Tue January 12 2010 8:04:12 am Richard Hirsch wrote:
> > 1. The following text will be added to the NOTICE file:
> >
> > "This product contains software developed by David Pollak and licensed
> > to the Apache Software Foundation via a Contributor's License
> > Agreement. "
> >
> > 2. The wording of the copyright notice in the individuals files is
> > currently: "Copyright 2008-2009 WorldWide Conferencing, LLC"
> >
> > This copyright notice will be changed to
> > "Copyright 2008-2009 WorldWide Conferencing, LLC (under David Pollak's
> > CLA)"
> >
> > For details, please see this legal-discuss mailing list thread:
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201001.mbox/%3cf
> > 767f0601001110028n54d85d03xaf703119fa08df6e@mail.gmail.com%3e
> >
>
> --
> Daniel Kulp
> dkulp@apache.org
> http://www.dankulp.com/blog
>
Re: [VOTE] Dealing with copyright issue (See ESME-47)
Posted by Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>.
+1 (IPMC binding)
Dan
On Tue January 12 2010 8:04:12 am Richard Hirsch wrote:
> 1. The following text will be added to the NOTICE file:
>
> "This product contains software developed by David Pollak and licensed
> to the Apache Software Foundation via a Contributor's License
> Agreement. "
>
> 2. The wording of the copyright notice in the individuals files is
> currently: "Copyright 2008-2009 WorldWide Conferencing, LLC"
>
> This copyright notice will be changed to
> "Copyright 2008-2009 WorldWide Conferencing, LLC (under David Pollak's
> CLA)"
>
> For details, please see this legal-discuss mailing list thread:
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201001.mbox/%3cf
> 767f0601001110028n54d85d03xaf703119fa08df6e@mail.gmail.com%3e
>
--
Daniel Kulp
dkulp@apache.org
http://www.dankulp.com/blog
Re: [VOTE] Dealing with copyright issue (See ESME-47)
Posted by Vassil Dichev <vd...@apache.org>.
+1
After catching up on legal-discuss, thanks to everyone who helped for
reaching a solution which is satisfactory to all sides.
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 3:20 PM, Daniel Koller <da...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> +1
>
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Richard Hirsch <hi...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> 1. The following text will be added to the NOTICE file:
>>
>> "This product contains software developed by David Pollak and licensed
>> to the Apache Software Foundation via a Contributor's License
>> Agreement. "
>>
>> 2. The wording of the copyright notice in the individuals files is
>> currently:
>> "Copyright 2008-2009 WorldWide Conferencing, LLC"
>>
>> This copyright notice will be changed to
>> "Copyright 2008-2009 WorldWide Conferencing, LLC (under David Pollak's
>> CLA)"
>>
>> For details, please see this legal-discuss mailing list thread:
>>
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201001.mbox/%3cf767f0601001110028n54d85d03xaf703119fa08df6e@mail.gmail.com%3e
>>
>
>
>
> --
> ---
> Daniel Koller
> Jahnstrasse 20
> 80469 München * dakoller@googlemail.com
>
Re: [VOTE] Dealing with copyright issue (See ESME-47)
Posted by Daniel Koller <da...@googlemail.com>.
+1
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Richard Hirsch <hi...@gmail.com>wrote:
> 1. The following text will be added to the NOTICE file:
>
> "This product contains software developed by David Pollak and licensed
> to the Apache Software Foundation via a Contributor's License
> Agreement. "
>
> 2. The wording of the copyright notice in the individuals files is
> currently:
> "Copyright 2008-2009 WorldWide Conferencing, LLC"
>
> This copyright notice will be changed to
> "Copyright 2008-2009 WorldWide Conferencing, LLC (under David Pollak's
> CLA)"
>
> For details, please see this legal-discuss mailing list thread:
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201001.mbox/%3cf767f0601001110028n54d85d03xaf703119fa08df6e@mail.gmail.com%3e
>
--
---
Daniel Koller
Jahnstrasse 20
80469 München * dakoller@googlemail.com
Re: [VOTE] Dealing with copyright issue (See ESME-47)
Posted by Ethan Jewett <es...@gmail.com>.
+1
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 8:04 AM, Richard Hirsch <hi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 1. The following text will be added to the NOTICE file:
>
> "This product contains software developed by David Pollak and licensed
> to the Apache Software Foundation via a Contributor's License
> Agreement. "
>
> 2. The wording of the copyright notice in the individuals files is currently:
> "Copyright 2008-2009 WorldWide Conferencing, LLC"
>
> This copyright notice will be changed to
> "Copyright 2008-2009 WorldWide Conferencing, LLC (under David Pollak's CLA)"
>
> For details, please see this legal-discuss mailing list thread:
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201001.mbox/%3cf767f0601001110028n54d85d03xaf703119fa08df6e@mail.gmail.com%3e
>
Re: [VOTE] Dealing with copyright issue (See ESME-47)
Posted by Anne Kathrine Petterøe <yo...@gmail.com>.
+1
/Anne
On 12. jan. 2010, at 14.04, Richard Hirsch wrote:
> 1. The following text will be added to the NOTICE file:
>
> "This product contains software developed by David Pollak and licensed
> to the Apache Software Foundation via a Contributor's License
> Agreement. "
>
> 2. The wording of the copyright notice in the individuals files is currently:
> "Copyright 2008-2009 WorldWide Conferencing, LLC"
>
> This copyright notice will be changed to
> "Copyright 2008-2009 WorldWide Conferencing, LLC (under David Pollak's CLA)"
>
> For details, please see this legal-discuss mailing list thread:
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201001.mbox/%3cf767f0601001110028n54d85d03xaf703119fa08df6e@mail.gmail.com%3e
Re: [VOTE] Dealing with copyright issue (See ESME-47)
Posted by "dhague@fortybeans.com" <dh...@fortybeans.com>.
+1
- Darren
On 12 January 2010 at 14:04 Richard Hirsch <hi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 1. The following text will be added to the NOTICE file:
>
> "This product contains software developed by David Pollak and licensed
> to the Apache Software Foundation via a Contributor's License
> Agreement. "
>
> 2. The wording of the copyright notice in the individuals files is currently:
> "Copyright 2008-2009 WorldWide Conferencing, LLC"
>
> This copyright notice will be changed to
> "Copyright 2008-2009 WorldWide Conferencing, LLC (under David Pollak's CLA)"
>
> For details, please see this legal-discuss mailing list thread:
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201001.mbox/%3cf767f0601001110028n54d85d03xaf703119fa08df6e@mail.gmail.com%3e