You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to derby-dev@db.apache.org by Rick Hillegas <Ri...@Sun.COM> on 2006/08/03 18:39:12 UTC
Copyrights
I hope that David can commit the work for DERBY-1377 before we cut the
10.2 branch next week. Unfortunately, I think David is stuck because
it's unclear what's required. Here's where I think this issue stands:
UNRESOLVED ISSUES:
1) Do we need to add license headers to our build scripts, property
files, README files, and other human-readable files which currently
don't have copyright notices? Or are these files excluded under the
rubric of "file without any degree of creativity"? Does some other
escape-clause exlude these files?
2) Should the IBM copyrights migrate from the COPYRIGHT to the NOTICE
file? If so, who is authorized to move these copyrights?
3) Are there other unclear issues?
I would like the community's guidance soon.
Thanks,
-Rick
Re: Copyrights
Posted by Daniel John Debrunner <dj...@apache.org>.
Rick Hillegas wrote:
> I hope that David can commit the work for DERBY-1377 before we cut the
> 10.2 branch next week. Unfortunately, I think David is stuck because
> it's unclear what's required. Here's where I think this issue stands:
>
> UNRESOLVED ISSUES:
>
> 1) Do we need to add license headers to our build scripts, property
> files, README files, and other human-readable files which currently
> don't have copyright notices? Or are these files excluded under the
> rubric of "file without any degree of creativity"? Does some other
> escape-clause exlude these files?
So I'll go out on a limb and say:
output from tests (.out) files have "no degree of creativity" since
they are computer generated from other files.
property files (.properties) have "no degree of creativity" since
they are just lists of values
SQL test scripts (.sql etc) have "no degree of creativity" since they
have no stand-alone purpose and can be considered as a non-creative
representation of a test plan. Sound good :-)
Dan.
Re: Copyrights
Posted by Daniel John Debrunner <dj...@apache.org>.
Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
> One clear issue that no-one has mentioned. Based upon the guidelines at
> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html we should no longer commit
> any contribution that has a copyright statement in it. E.g. a new file
> should not be accepted if it has a copyright statement in it. The owner
> of the copyright needs to remove the statement, so it's not as easy as
> the committer simply deleting it.
And new files must have the new licence wording, I didn't realise the
first paragraph had changed until David said he was going to make such
changes.
Dan.
Re: Copyrights
Posted by Daniel John Debrunner <dj...@apache.org>.
Rick Hillegas wrote:
> Jean T. Anderson wrote:
>
>> Jean T. Anderson wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
>>>
>>>> Rick Hillegas wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 3) Are there other unclear issues?
>>>>>
>>
>> ...
>> This point from DERBY-1377 is falling into the cracks:
>>
>>
>>
>>> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-1377#action_12422783 says
>>> this:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Copyright 1997, 2004 The Apache Software Foundation or its
>>>> licensors, as applicable.
>>>>
>>>> Removing these might require the permission of the actual copyright
>>>> holders, which might be a pain to track down as to who has copyright
>>>> on each file (allowing multiple holders per file). The new ASF
>>>> policy does allow copyright notices to be left in the header (but
>>>> would prefer not to).
>>>
>>> Is there a resolution for this?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Dan, you expressed concern about handling of the "Copyright 1997, 2004
>> The Apache Software Foundation or its licensors, as applicable." line.
>> How do you think that should be handled?
>>
>> thanks,
>>
>> -jean
>>
>>
> I'm afraid I don't understand the issue here. Is it one of the following:
>
> A) We don't know who the "licensors" are and are wondering if we have to
> identify the licensors and ask their permission?
>
> B) The verbiage above implies a copyright claim by the individual
> contributor (or the company which hired the contributor) and we are
> wondering if we have to identify these contributors/companies and ask
> their permission?
I think A) & B) are the same.
Legally you cannot remove someone else's copyright notice without
permission, though as far as I understand the law is weak on shared
copright.
I will ask legal-disucss, now I understand what I have to ask.
Dan.
Re: Copyrights
Posted by Daniel John Debrunner <dj...@apache.org>.
Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
> David Van Couvering wrote:
>
>
>
>>Do I understand correctly that code contributed under CLA after the
>>original IBM contribution must also require gaining permission from the
>>original contributors? Does this basically mean that we need to get
>>permission from every person who has ever contributed code to Derby
>>before I can run this script? I guess this is what you're trying to
>>find out, Dan, right?
>
>
> Yes I'm trying to find that out, once my e-mail appears in the
> legal-discuss archives I will post a link here.
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200608.mbox/%3c44D25C9D.20404@apache.org%3e
Dan.
Re: Copyrights
Posted by Daniel John Debrunner <dj...@apache.org>.
David Van Couvering wrote:
> Do I understand correctly that code contributed under CLA after the
> original IBM contribution must also require gaining permission from the
> original contributors? Does this basically mean that we need to get
> permission from every person who has ever contributed code to Derby
> before I can run this script? I guess this is what you're trying to
> find out, Dan, right?
Yes I'm trying to find that out, once my e-mail appears in the
legal-discuss archives I will post a link here.
Dan.
Re: Copyrights
Posted by David Van Couvering <Da...@Sun.COM>.
Turns out that trying to hack the script to *not* remove the copyright
statement, and then at a future run build a new script that *only*
removes the copyright statement, is more work than I'm willing to do.
Also, it means doing two passes through the entire source tree (I was
going to do it one directory at a time), with lots of very careful
checking and double-checking to make sure it was all done right. I'd
rather only go through that once...
Do I understand correctly that code contributed under CLA after the
original IBM contribution must also require gaining permission from the
original contributors? Does this basically mean that we need to get
permission from every person who has ever contributed code to Derby
before I can run this script? I guess this is what you're trying to
find out, Dan, right?
Thanks,
David
Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
> David Van Couvering wrote:
>
>> I think I can get started by doing the following:
>>
>> - Adding the license text to the source files where they are missing
>> - Changing the license verbiage to meet the new requirements but *not*
>> removing the copyright notice.
>>
>> In a second phase, if when this final issue gets clarified, I can do
>> another pass removing the copyright notice from the source files. Dan
>> is already moving the IBM copyright from COPYRIGHTS to NOTICE.
>>
>> Sound good?
>
> +1
> Dan.
>
>
Re: Copyrights
Posted by Daniel John Debrunner <dj...@apache.org>.
David Van Couvering wrote:
> I think I can get started by doing the following:
>
> - Adding the license text to the source files where they are missing
> - Changing the license verbiage to meet the new requirements but *not*
> removing the copyright notice.
>
> In a second phase, if when this final issue gets clarified, I can do
> another pass removing the copyright notice from the source files. Dan
> is already moving the IBM copyright from COPYRIGHTS to NOTICE.
>
> Sound good?
+1
Dan.
Re: Copyrights
Posted by David Van Couvering <Da...@Sun.COM>.
I think I can get started by doing the following:
- Adding the license text to the source files where they are missing
- Changing the license verbiage to meet the new requirements but *not*
removing the copyright notice.
In a second phase, if when this final issue gets clarified, I can do
another pass removing the copyright notice from the source files. Dan
is already moving the IBM copyright from COPYRIGHTS to NOTICE.
Sound good?
David
Rick Hillegas wrote:
> Jean T. Anderson wrote:
>
>> Jean T. Anderson wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
>>>> Rick Hillegas wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 3) Are there other unclear issues?
>>>>>
>> ...
>> This point from DERBY-1377 is falling into the cracks:
>>
>>
>>
>>> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-1377#action_12422783 says
>>> this:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Copyright 1997, 2004 The Apache Software Foundation or its
>>>> licensors, as applicable.
>>>>
>>>> Removing these might require the permission of the actual copyright
>>>> holders, which might be a pain to track down as to who has copyright
>>>> on each file (allowing multiple holders per file). The new ASF
>>>> policy does allow copyright notices to be left in the header (but
>>>> would prefer not to).
>>> Is there a resolution for this?
>>>
>>
>> Dan, you expressed concern about handling of the "Copyright 1997, 2004
>> The Apache Software Foundation or its licensors, as applicable." line.
>> How do you think that should be handled?
>>
>> thanks,
>>
>> -jean
>>
>>
> I'm afraid I don't understand the issue here. Is it one of the following:
>
> A) We don't know who the "licensors" are and are wondering if we have to
> identify the licensors and ask their permission?
>
> B) The verbiage above implies a copyright claim by the individual
> contributor (or the company which hired the contributor) and we are
> wondering if we have to identify these contributors/companies and ask
> their permission?
>
> C) Something else?
>
> Thanks,
> -Rick
Re: Copyrights
Posted by Rick Hillegas <Ri...@Sun.COM>.
Jean T. Anderson wrote:
>Jean T. Anderson wrote:
>
>
>>Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Rick Hillegas wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>3) Are there other unclear issues?
>>>>
>>>>
>...
>This point from DERBY-1377 is falling into the cracks:
>
>
>
>>http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-1377#action_12422783 says this:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Copyright 1997, 2004 The Apache Software Foundation or its licensors, as applicable.
>>>
>>>Removing these might require the permission of the actual copyright holders, which might be a pain to track down as to who has copyright on each file (allowing multiple holders per file). The new ASF policy does allow copyright notices to be left in the header (but would prefer not to).
>>>
>>>
>>Is there a resolution for this?
>>
>>
>
>Dan, you expressed concern about handling of the "Copyright 1997, 2004
>The Apache Software Foundation or its licensors, as applicable." line.
>How do you think that should be handled?
>
>thanks,
>
> -jean
>
>
I'm afraid I don't understand the issue here. Is it one of the following:
A) We don't know who the "licensors" are and are wondering if we have to
identify the licensors and ask their permission?
B) The verbiage above implies a copyright claim by the individual
contributor (or the company which hired the contributor) and we are
wondering if we have to identify these contributors/companies and ask
their permission?
C) Something else?
Thanks,
-Rick
Re: Copyrights
Posted by "Jean T. Anderson" <jt...@bristowhill.com>.
Jean T. Anderson wrote:
> Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
>>Rick Hillegas wrote:
>>>3) Are there other unclear issues?
...
This point from DERBY-1377 is falling into the cracks:
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-1377#action_12422783 says this:
>
>>Copyright 1997, 2004 The Apache Software Foundation or its licensors, as applicable.
>>
>>Removing these might require the permission of the actual copyright holders, which might be a pain to track down as to who has copyright on each file (allowing multiple holders per file). The new ASF policy does allow copyright notices to be left in the header (but would prefer not to).
>
> Is there a resolution for this?
Dan, you expressed concern about handling of the "Copyright 1997, 2004
The Apache Software Foundation or its licensors, as applicable." line.
How do you think that should be handled?
thanks,
-jean
Re: Copyrights
Posted by "Jean T. Anderson" <jt...@bristowhill.com>.
Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
...
> Later discussion seems to imply Roy is wrong, there is a single policy
> for this issue, set by the board. PMC's cannot overrule it.
>
> "Note in B2 of the resolution "there
> should be no copyright notice in the header"."
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200607.mbox/%3c200607051020.35245.niclas@hedhman.org%3e
good catch -- thanks.
> The board resolution in the legal-discuss matches the policy page, no
> mention that PMC's can opt out.
>
> Not clear though.
yup!
-jean
Re: Copyrights
Posted by Daniel John Debrunner <dj...@apache.org>.
Jean T. Anderson wrote:
> Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
>
>>Jean T. Anderson wrote:
>>
>>>Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
>>>
>>>>Rick Hillegas wrote:
>>>
>>>...
>>>
>>>>>3) Are there other unclear issues?
>>>>
>>>>One clear issue that no-one has mentioned. Based upon the guidelines at
>>>>http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html we should no longer commit
>>>>any contribution that has a copyright statement in it. E.g. a new file
>>>>should not be accepted if it has a copyright statement in it. The owner
>>>>of the copyright needs to remove the statement, so it's not as easy as
>>>>the committer simply deleting it.
>>>
>>>
>>>The DB PMC can approve committing a contribution with a copyright
>>>statement in it.
>>
>>Where does it say that on the policy page?
>>
>>http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
>
> ...
>
> Not on that page.
>
> I have that understand from posts on legal-discuss regarding the source
> header changes.
>
> First by this post by Roy Fielding [1]:
>
> On Jun 5, 2006, at 11:04 AM, Stephen McConnell ((DPML)) wrote:
> > In addition to the above I would like to know the ASF position
> > concerning
> > potentially new contributions to the ASF associated to known and
> > reachable
> > contributors via existing copyright assertions who are unwilling to
> > acquiesce to the removal of copyright statements from existing
> > documents.
>
> The law does not allow us to remove or alter the copyright notice
> without the copyright owner's consent. When new contributions are
> made, the responsible PMC decides whether the contribution is in a
> form that they deem acceptable, and either accepts it or rejects it.
>
> And this post, also by Roy Fielding [2]:
>
> On Jun 5, 2006, at 3:38 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > Is a copyright entry acceptable only for an initial contribution,
> > and not
> > thereafter? Or what? And, yes, I understand that PMCs can make
> > decisions,
> > but we really ought to have a policy to prevent things turning into
> > copywrong.
>
> A PMC must vote to accept the contribution. The PMC can choose not to
> accept the contribution based on anything it doesn't like. If we make
> a special rule based on all of the possible anti-social behaviors
> that might lead to chaos, then our PMCs are never going to learn how
> to govern themselves. We only need ASF-wide rules for the things that
> are required of the ASF as a whole.
>
> Anything that does not match the documented guideline should be popped
> to the PMC. And, if there's any doubt about what the PMC can and cannot
> do, the PMC itself can get further guidance.
>
> -jean
>
> [1]
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200606.mbox/%3c790B35FB-A5E1-45A7-800F-5ED790A15DDE@gbiv.com%3e
>
> [2]
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200606.mbox/%3c3C724EA4-47C1-409B-B87C-BDD8585CBCCE@gbiv.com%3e
>
Later discussion seems to imply Roy is wrong, there is a single policy
for this issue, set by the board. PMC's cannot overrule it.
"Note in B2 of the resolution "there
should be no copyright notice in the header"."
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200607.mbox/%3c200607051020.35245.niclas@hedhman.org%3e
The board resolution in the legal-discuss matches the policy page, no
mention that PMC's can opt out.
Not clear though.
Dan.
Re: Copyrights
Posted by "Jean T. Anderson" <jt...@bristowhill.com>.
Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
>Jean T. Anderson wrote:
>>Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
>>>Rick Hillegas wrote:
>>...
>>>>3) Are there other unclear issues?
>>>
>>>One clear issue that no-one has mentioned. Based upon the guidelines at
>>>http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html we should no longer commit
>>>any contribution that has a copyright statement in it. E.g. a new file
>>>should not be accepted if it has a copyright statement in it. The owner
>>>of the copyright needs to remove the statement, so it's not as easy as
>>>the committer simply deleting it.
>>
>>
>>The DB PMC can approve committing a contribution with a copyright
>>statement in it.
>
> Where does it say that on the policy page?
>
> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
...
Not on that page.
I have that understand from posts on legal-discuss regarding the source
header changes.
First by this post by Roy Fielding [1]:
On Jun 5, 2006, at 11:04 AM, Stephen McConnell ((DPML)) wrote:
> In addition to the above I would like to know the ASF position
> concerning
> potentially new contributions to the ASF associated to known and
> reachable
> contributors via existing copyright assertions who are unwilling to
> acquiesce to the removal of copyright statements from existing
> documents.
The law does not allow us to remove or alter the copyright notice
without the copyright owner's consent. When new contributions are
made, the responsible PMC decides whether the contribution is in a
form that they deem acceptable, and either accepts it or rejects it.
And this post, also by Roy Fielding [2]:
On Jun 5, 2006, at 3:38 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Is a copyright entry acceptable only for an initial contribution,
> and not
> thereafter? Or what? And, yes, I understand that PMCs can make
> decisions,
> but we really ought to have a policy to prevent things turning into
> copywrong.
A PMC must vote to accept the contribution. The PMC can choose not to
accept the contribution based on anything it doesn't like. If we make
a special rule based on all of the possible anti-social behaviors
that might lead to chaos, then our PMCs are never going to learn how
to govern themselves. We only need ASF-wide rules for the things that
are required of the ASF as a whole.
Anything that does not match the documented guideline should be popped
to the PMC. And, if there's any doubt about what the PMC can and cannot
do, the PMC itself can get further guidance.
-jean
[1]
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200606.mbox/%3c790B35FB-A5E1-45A7-800F-5ED790A15DDE@gbiv.com%3e
[2]
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200606.mbox/%3c3C724EA4-47C1-409B-B87C-BDD8585CBCCE@gbiv.com%3e
Re: Copyrights
Posted by Daniel John Debrunner <dj...@apache.org>.
Jean T. Anderson wrote:
> Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
>
>>Rick Hillegas wrote:
>
> ...
>
>>>3) Are there other unclear issues?
>>
>>One clear issue that no-one has mentioned. Based upon the guidelines at
>>http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html we should no longer commit
>>any contribution that has a copyright statement in it. E.g. a new file
>>should not be accepted if it has a copyright statement in it. The owner
>>of the copyright needs to remove the statement, so it's not as easy as
>>the committer simply deleting it.
>
>
> The DB PMC can approve committing a contribution with a copyright
> statement in it.
Where does it say that on the policy page?
http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
All I see is
<quote>
If the source file is submitted with a copyright notice included in it,
the copyright owner (or owner's agent) must either:
1. remove such notices, or
2. move them to the NOTICE file associated with each applicable
project release, or
3. provide written permission for the ASF to make such removal or
relocation of the notices.
</quote>
>From the discussions I've looked at in legal-discuss archives, it's very
clear that the policy for *new* files coming into the ASF that they must
not contain a copyright statement.
Not this is separate from existing copyright statements in existing
files in ASF svn respositories.
Dan.
Re: Copyrights
Posted by "Jean T. Anderson" <jt...@bristowhill.com>.
Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
> Rick Hillegas wrote:
...
>>3) Are there other unclear issues?
>
> One clear issue that no-one has mentioned. Based upon the guidelines at
> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html we should no longer commit
> any contribution that has a copyright statement in it. E.g. a new file
> should not be accepted if it has a copyright statement in it. The owner
> of the copyright needs to remove the statement, so it's not as easy as
> the committer simply deleting it.
The DB PMC can approve committing a contribution with a copyright
statement in it.
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-1377#action_12422783 says this:
> Copyright 1997, 2004 The Apache Software Foundation or its licensors, as applicable.
>
> Removing these might require the permission of the actual copyright holders, which might be a pain to track down as to who has copyright on each file (allowing multiple holders per file). The new ASF policy does allow copyright notices to be left in the header (but would prefer not to).
Is there a resolution for this?
-jean
Re: Copyrights
Posted by Daniel John Debrunner <dj...@apache.org>.
Rick Hillegas wrote:
> I hope that David can commit the work for DERBY-1377 before we cut the
> 10.2 branch next week. Unfortunately, I think David is stuck because
> it's unclear what's required. Here's where I think this issue stands:
>
> UNRESOLVED ISSUES:
>
> 1) Do we need to add license headers to our build scripts, property
> files, README files, and other human-readable files which currently
> don't have copyright notices? Or are these files excluded under the
> rubric of "file without any degree of creativity"? Does some other
> escape-clause exlude these files?
>
> 2) Should the IBM copyrights migrate from the COPYRIGHT to the NOTICE
> file? If so, who is authorized to move these copyrights?
Yes. I will move them and remove the COPYRIGHT FILE. The rule for
copyright statments is the owner has to remove them or give permission
for them to be removed.
> 3) Are there other unclear issues?
One clear issue that no-one has mentioned. Based upon the guidelines at
http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html we should no longer commit
any contribution that has a copyright statement in it. E.g. a new file
should not be accepted if it has a copyright statement in it. The owner
of the copyright needs to remove the statement, so it's not as easy as
the committer simply deleting it.
I don't think there are any other issues outstanding.
Dan.
Re: Copyrights
Posted by "Jean T. Anderson" <jt...@bristowhill.com>.
Jean T. Anderson wrote:
> Rick Hillegas wrote:
...
>>2) Should the IBM copyrights migrate from the COPYRIGHT to the NOTICE
>>file? If so, who is authorized to move these copyrights?
>
>
> My understanding is a deviation from the ASF guideline, if that's the
> right thing to do in this case, needs the DB PMC to accept or reject
> it[1]. If PMC approval is needed, time needs to be allowed. Also, one
> option might be to do this [2]:
>
>>Leave it as is, or add our license header above the copyright line and
>>remove the header below the copyright line, leaving the copyright line
>>as is.
Sorry, the option I posted would be for the current copyright line in
the source files, does not address moving the IBM copyright from the
COPYRIGHT file to NOTICE file. I don't know on that one.
-jean
>
> If this seems suitable, we should also run it by the PMC. At any rate,
> it would really help for any who objected to also participate in this
> discussion beyond simply objecting.
>
> -jean
>
>
> [1]
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200606.mbox/%3c790B35FB-A5E1-45A7-800F-5ED790A15DDE@gbiv.com%3e
> [2]
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200606.mbox/%3c8042AD24-06D7-4A38-B748-F80361F14082@gbiv.com%3e
>
>
>>3) Are there other unclear issues?
>>
>>I would like the community's guidance soon.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>-Rick
>>
>
>
Re: Copyrights
Posted by "Jean T. Anderson" <jt...@bristowhill.com>.
Rick Hillegas wrote:
> I hope that David can commit the work for DERBY-1377 before we cut the
> 10.2 branch next week. Unfortunately, I think David is stuck because
> it's unclear what's required. Here's where I think this issue stands:
>
> UNRESOLVED ISSUES:
>
> 1) Do we need to add license headers to our build scripts, property
> files, README files, and other human-readable files which currently
> don't have copyright notices? Or are these files excluded under the
> rubric of "file without any degree of creativity"? Does some other
> escape-clause exlude these files?
If there's any question, I believe there's no harm in adding them.
http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html says:
"If in doubt about the extent of the file's creativity, add the license
header to the file."
> 2) Should the IBM copyrights migrate from the COPYRIGHT to the NOTICE
> file? If so, who is authorized to move these copyrights?
My understanding is a deviation from the ASF guideline, if that's the
right thing to do in this case, needs the DB PMC to accept or reject
it[1]. If PMC approval is needed, time needs to be allowed. Also, one
option might be to do this [2]:
> Leave it as is, or add our license header above the copyright line and
> remove the header below the copyright line, leaving the copyright line
> as is.
If this seems suitable, we should also run it by the PMC. At any rate,
it would really help for any who objected to also participate in this
discussion beyond simply objecting.
-jean
[1]
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200606.mbox/%3c790B35FB-A5E1-45A7-800F-5ED790A15DDE@gbiv.com%3e
[2]
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200606.mbox/%3c8042AD24-06D7-4A38-B748-F80361F14082@gbiv.com%3e
> 3) Are there other unclear issues?
>
> I would like the community's guidance soon.
>
> Thanks,
> -Rick
>