You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net> on 2009/12/08 06:29:42 UTC
Re: How documentation != code, and how to "do" policy (was: Re:
Publishing api docs for Subversion)
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>
> So, any policy in the area is not really bound in the legal space, and
> more in the 'representation of ASF'-space.
No, there is a legal distinction between work-product (the intermediate
steps) and a publication. Posts like this might attempt to muddy the
distinction, so it's our job to communicate to the general public which
bucket is which, and where they can find them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: How documentation != code, and how to "do" policy (was: Re: Publishing api docs for Subversion)
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
----- Original Message ----
> From: Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Tue, December 8, 2009 1:03:51 AM
> Subject: Re: How documentation != code, and how to "do" policy (was: Re: Publishing api docs for Subversion)
>
> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 1:37 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> > There's also a world of difference between worldwide distribution
> > and distribution to a self-selected subgroup.
>
> You are right that it is a big "IMHO" of everything here, but
> "self-selected subgroup" is not a legal term in copyrighted material
> either. So, no clue of who has no clue ;-)
> Either it is available to the public or it is not. And as I mentioned,
> in EU people at your work place are "public" and not "private", vs
> friends are "private". Now that definition probably differs in
> different jurisdictions, so if you have credential requirements then
> you are in a different, more 'at work'-like situation. The fact that
> "anyone can download" makes it "public" no matter how you look at it.
>
You keep bringing up this point as if it were somehow relevant to the
discussion. Noone is disputing that these are public works, what is
being disputed is the nature of the work and the scope of the distribution.
> "Liability considerations", not sure what you are trying to hint, or
> whether you just try to toss me off the track... It is easy to be
> vague and sound educated.
Well do a little looking into how the RIA is prosecuting copyright offenses
and you'll see that "damages" are assessed according to the number of
offenses. That is a liability consideration- courts will laugh at the RIA
for attempting to prosecute file-sharers with relatively few known distributions
of copyrighted material. And that distinction is the main point the ASF is
trying to establish with dev-only distributions vs. world-wide distributions
(aka releases), ideally that an aggrieved copyright holder's redress would be
limited to pulling the offending material in the case of a dev-only distribution.
Is this a court-tested principle? Of course not, but that doesn't make the concept
or its pursuit invalid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: How documentation != code, and how to "do" policy (was: Re:
Publishing api docs for Subversion)
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 1:37 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> There's also a world of difference between worldwide distribution
> and distribution to a self-selected subgroup.
You are right that it is a big "IMHO" of everything here, but
"self-selected subgroup" is not a legal term in copyrighted material
either. So, no clue of who has no clue ;-)
Either it is available to the public or it is not. And as I mentioned,
in EU people at your work place are "public" and not "private", vs
friends are "private". Now that definition probably differs in
different jurisdictions, so if you have credential requirements then
you are in a different, more 'at work'-like situation. The fact that
"anyone can download" makes it "public" no matter how you look at it.
"Liability considerations", not sure what you are trying to hint, or
whether you just try to toss me off the track... It is easy to be
vague and sound educated.
Cheers
--
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java
I live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er
I work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc
I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: How documentation != code, and how to "do" policy (was: Re: Publishing api docs for Subversion)
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
There's also a world of difference between worldwide distribution
and distribution to a self-selected subgroup. Niclas has no clue
what he's talking about when liability considerations are factored in,
and as this is not a list where legal council for the ASF makes itself
available I suggest his words be considered with a big fat IMHO around
them.
----- Original Message ----
> From: William A. Rowe Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Tue, December 8, 2009 12:29:42 AM
> Subject: Re: How documentation != code, and how to "do" policy (was: Re: Publishing api docs for Subversion)
>
> Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> >
> > So, any policy in the area is not really bound in the legal space, and
> > more in the 'representation of ASF'-space.
>
> No, there is a legal distinction between work-product (the intermediate
> steps) and a publication. Posts like this might attempt to muddy the
> distinction, so it's our job to communicate to the general public which
> bucket is which, and where they can find them.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: How documentation != code, and how to "do" policy (was: Re:
Publishing api docs for Subversion)
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 1:29 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>>
>> So, any policy in the area is not really bound in the legal space, and
>> more in the 'representation of ASF'-space.
>
> No, there is a legal distinction between work-product (the intermediate
> steps) and a publication. Posts like this might attempt to muddy the
> distinction, so it's our job to communicate to the general public which
> bucket is which, and where they can find them.
Uhhhh.... So this is a USA-specific concept?
>From my experience (Sweden, now under EU Law), there is two central
concepts (regarding "publish") of work under Copyright; a) Right to
Copy, b) "Making available to the public" vs "private use".
For instance; I have the right to copy a CD for private use, incl
giving it to a friend. I don't have the right to copy a CD and make it
available to the public, not even work colleagues.
Apache's dev section is not "private use" and therefor would fall
under "making available to the public".
Absurd Example; "I have obtained the right to make derivative work
(for instance paying money for it) of a famous song, with some strong
restrictions. The end result will be a freely downloadable work. So, I
create my "work-product" which is the original song, and have that
available to the public for download...." No way that there is room in
the law for that... Because then you could claim, "Oh, this full copy
of the book is 'work-product' since I will have an excerpt under 'fair
use' in my book, and the full book will not be part of the end
result."
Sorry, I don't buy it, that US law can be that flimsy. My guess is
that "work-product" is only applicable in closed environments (i.e.
not public), but I think you need to point me to the legislation in
question.
Cheers
--
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java
I live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er
I work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc
I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org