You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@esme.apache.org by Anne Kathrine Petterøe <yo...@gmail.com> on 2010/01/19 12:10:45 UTC
[VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
PPMC and IPMC, please re-vote on the following regarding copyright issue ESME-47.
1. The Apache license block will be added at the beginning of each source file:
/* Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more
* contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file distributed with
* this work for additional information regarding copyright ownership.
* The ASF licenses this file to You under the Apache License, Version 2.0
* (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with
* the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at *
* http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 *
* Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
* distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
* WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
* See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
* limitations under the License. */
2. The Apache License block will be followed by a legacy comment (Only in files where the WorldWide Conferencing notice currently exists, except any files where user dpp has not made any contribution):
/* * Portions Copyright 2009 WorldWide Conferencing, LLC */
3. A NOTICE file with the following text will be added:
Apache Foo Incubating Code Copyright 2010 The Apache Software Foundation.
This product includes software developed at The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
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] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
Posted by Anne Kathrine Petterøe <yo...@gmail.com>.
Robert,
We have already had a lengthy discussion on legal-discuss:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201001.mbox/thread
Look for the "Committer refuses to remove copyright notices in source (ESME-47), how best to solve? " thread.
I am not sure if this is the same list as the legal-private list you mention?
The text in this vote is a suggestion from William Rowe:
http://markmail.org/message/q6yweleer2voqvd3
(which no one on the legal-list objected to)
/Anne
On 19 Jan, 2010, at 17:51 , Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Anne Kathrine Petterøe
> <yo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> PPMC and IPMC, please re-vote on the following regarding copyright issue ESME-47.
>
> <snip>
>
>> 2. The Apache License block will be followed by a legacy comment (Only in files where the WorldWide Conferencing notice currently exists, except any files where user dpp has not made any contribution):
>> /* * Portions Copyright 2009 WorldWide Conferencing, LLC */
>
> <ipmc-hat><legal-hat><ianal>
>
> if this language has not been cleared with our lawyers on legal-private then :
>
> * i'm -1 on this phrasing
> * please raise a legal JIRA for appropriate language
>
> </ianal></legal-hat></ipmc-hat>
>
> the reason for this veto is that i believe that this phrasing is
>
> 1. potentially untrue
>
> for example, if at some future time someone decides to revert all the
> relevant commits - or in time the code is so extensively revised then
> no portions of the code will be subject to that copyright and the
> statement will be untrue.
>
> 2. potentially dangerous
>
> for example it could be read as a claim rather than a statement
>
>
> AIUI (please jump in if i'm wrong) some source files was derived from
> originals that contained the notice "Copyright 2009 WorldWide
> Conferencing, LLC". something along the lines below seems to me more
> truthful:
>
> /*
> * This document was derived from an original containing the following
> copyright notice:
> *
> * Copyright 2009 WorldWide Conferencing, LLC
> *
> */
>
> but IMO this is a job for a lawyer
>
> - robert
Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
Posted by Anne Kathrine Petterøe <yo...@gmail.com>.
Robert,
We have already had a lengthy discussion on legal-discuss:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201001.mbox/thread
Look for the "Committer refuses to remove copyright notices in source (ESME-47), how best to solve? " thread.
I am not sure if this is the same list as the legal-private list you mention?
The text in this vote is a suggestion from William Rowe:
http://markmail.org/message/q6yweleer2voqvd3
(which no one on the legal-list objected to)
/Anne
On 19 Jan, 2010, at 17:51 , Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Anne Kathrine Petterøe
> <yo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> PPMC and IPMC, please re-vote on the following regarding copyright issue ESME-47.
>
> <snip>
>
>> 2. The Apache License block will be followed by a legacy comment (Only in files where the WorldWide Conferencing notice currently exists, except any files where user dpp has not made any contribution):
>> /* * Portions Copyright 2009 WorldWide Conferencing, LLC */
>
> <ipmc-hat><legal-hat><ianal>
>
> if this language has not been cleared with our lawyers on legal-private then :
>
> * i'm -1 on this phrasing
> * please raise a legal JIRA for appropriate language
>
> </ianal></legal-hat></ipmc-hat>
>
> the reason for this veto is that i believe that this phrasing is
>
> 1. potentially untrue
>
> for example, if at some future time someone decides to revert all the
> relevant commits - or in time the code is so extensively revised then
> no portions of the code will be subject to that copyright and the
> statement will be untrue.
>
> 2. potentially dangerous
>
> for example it could be read as a claim rather than a statement
>
>
> AIUI (please jump in if i'm wrong) some source files was derived from
> originals that contained the notice "Copyright 2009 WorldWide
> Conferencing, LLC". something along the lines below seems to me more
> truthful:
>
> /*
> * This document was derived from an original containing the following
> copyright notice:
> *
> * Copyright 2009 WorldWide Conferencing, LLC
> *
> */
>
> but IMO this is a job for a lawyer
>
> - robert
Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
Posted by Gianugo Rabellino <gi...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 8:11 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
<bd...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 1:59 AM, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>> ...I suggest you review the thread that was provided and then see if you want to reconsider your veto....
>
> As this vote is not about a technical issue, I don't think there are
> vetos - we should have explicitely specified that this is a majority
> vote.
>
> Robert and Gianugo, did you mean to veto this with your -1s, or just
> express your disagreement with the majority?
"Just" a strong disagreement.
--
Gianugo
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
----- Original Message ----
> From: Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>
> To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Wed, January 20, 2010 2:59:26 PM
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
>
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 7:11 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 1:59 AM, Ralph Goers
> wrote:
> >> ...I suggest you review the thread that was provided and then see if you want
> to reconsider your veto....
> >
> > As this vote is not about a technical issue, I don't think there are
> > vetos - we should have explicitely specified that this is a majority
> > vote.
> >
> > Robert and Gianugo, did you mean to veto this with your -1s, or just
> > express your disagreement with the majority?
>
> i consider making claims about third party copyright ownership rather
> than a statement of fact is positively dangerous from a legal
> perspective
>
> so, it's a legal team veto until i have chance to review (my exam is
> tomorrow morning so i should be able to find some time in the
> afternoon)
>
> if anyone objects or feels that i am wrong then please raise on the
> legal lists. if sam ruby or a majority of the legal team folks feel
> that i'm wrong then i'm happy to be outvoted.
Robert:
Why don't you do everyone a favor, gather up the legal-team, and issue a ruling
saying ANY ASF COMMITTER can move these nagging copyright notices into the NOTICE
file. When you do that, be sure to update the appropriate policy documents these
folks are trying to comply with. The only reason this project is troubling itself
to jump through so many hoops is because the legal team is too chicken shit to
tell these people what to do in this circumstance.
>
> - robert
Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 8:59 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
<ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 7:11 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> <bd...@apache.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 1:59 AM, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>>> ...I suggest you review the thread that was provided and then see if you want to reconsider your veto....
>>
>> As this vote is not about a technical issue, I don't think there are
>> vetos - we should have explicitely specified that this is a majority
>> vote.
>>
>> Robert and Gianugo, did you mean to veto this with your -1s, or just
>> express your disagreement with the majority?
>
> i consider making claims about third party copyright ownership rather
> than a statement of fact is positively dangerous from a legal
> perspective
>
> so, it's a legal team veto until i have chance to review (my exam is
> tomorrow morning so i should be able to find some time in the
> afternoon)...
Ok, this should leave enough time for you to review within this vote's
72 hours duration ;-)
Please review this thread on the legal-discuss list, in particular:
http://markmail.org/thread/fy3gfbgezgkcq44j
Several experienced folks have voiced their opinions there, we didn't
just make this up out of thin air.
-Bertrand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
Posted by Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>.
On Fri January 22 2010 5:05:47 am Anne Kathrine Petterøe wrote:
> Bertrand,
>
> To be honest it is difficult to work under such circumstances.
> I am not sure we will get anything done until this issue is resolved.
>
> /Anne
Anne,
I know this is a very difficult situation, but I hope you realize that this is
actually one of the main advantages of Apache over most of the other "forges"
and such that are out there. One thing Apache tries its best to do is to
make sure everything is squeaky clean from a legal perspective so that users
of Apache software can use the software with some level of confidence in it's
legal status. To accomplish that, every once in a while, we need to suffer
through some of these situations to make sure everything is OK. With many of
the other communities, they don't have the legal council available to help
figure out what the proper solutions are to problems like these and the final
result may or may not be "legal" and could cause long term issues for the
project.
In the end, I hope the companies that are using ESME will be happy that this
has been resolved satisfactory and they can once again be confident in the
legal status of ESME.
Dan
>
> On 22 Jan, 2010, at 10:18 , Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 10:11 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin
> >
> > <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> i've had time to take a brief look at the mailing lists and IMHO this
> >> matter needs to be taken private (and i started the balls rolling for
> >> that). i will issue a formal veto with both IPMC and legal hats on in
> >> due course. i just wanted to know that i'm going to unsubscribe this
> >> email address from these lists until this matter has been sorted out....
> >
> > So you were not here when we discussed this, now you jump in, say it's
> > all wrong, and say you're going to discuss it behind the curtain?
> >
> > Not fun at all.
> >
> > And I'm not copying you on this reply, if you're not here anymore
> > that's too bad.
> >
> > ESME folks, hope you're able to continue working without being too
> > much disturbed by this, based on the recent discussions here and
> > especially on legal-discuss I think Robert is blowing this way out of
> > proportion.
> >
> > I'll let you know when we're back from fight club ;-)
> >
> > -Bertrand
>
--
Daniel Kulp
dkulp@apache.org
http://www.dankulp.com/blog
Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 6:27 PM, Anne Kathrine Petterøe
<yo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Does Robert's vote count as a normal -1?
I'd list both Gianugo's and Robert's -1s and specify that according to
their authors they express disagreement, not vetos.
-Bertrand
Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
Posted by Anne Kathrine Petterøe <yo...@gmail.com>.
Does Robert's vote count as a normal -1?
/Anne Kathrine
Sent from my iPhone
On 22. jan. 2010, at 18.19, Bertrand Delacretaz
<bd...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi Anne,
>
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Anne Kathrine Petterøe
> <yo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ...I hope this issue will resolve itself quickly so that we
>> hopefully can get back on track....
>
> Now that Robert has withdrawn his veto (see "[VETO] Emse veto
> invalid"), feel free to tally this vote once the 72 hour period is
> over (which might be the case already).
>
> Make sure to account for votes on both the esme and incubator lists,
> and please note binding votes from Incubator PMC members (listed at
> http://incubator.apache.org/whoweare.html though that's not usually
> 100% up to date, but people can fix that in the tally if needed).
>
> Thanks!
> -Bertrand
Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
Hi Anne,
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Anne Kathrine Petterøe
<yo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...I hope this issue will resolve itself quickly so that we hopefully can get back on track....
Now that Robert has withdrawn his veto (see "[VETO] Emse veto
invalid"), feel free to tally this vote once the 72 hour period is
over (which might be the case already).
Make sure to account for votes on both the esme and incubator lists,
and please note binding votes from Incubator PMC members (listed at
http://incubator.apache.org/whoweare.html though that's not usually
100% up to date, but people can fix that in the tally if needed).
Thanks!
-Bertrand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
Hi Anne,
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Anne Kathrine Petterøe
<yo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...I hope this issue will resolve itself quickly so that we hopefully can get back on track....
Now that Robert has withdrawn his veto (see "[VETO] Emse veto
invalid"), feel free to tally this vote once the 72 hour period is
over (which might be the case already).
Make sure to account for votes on both the esme and incubator lists,
and please note binding votes from Incubator PMC members (listed at
http://incubator.apache.org/whoweare.html though that's not usually
100% up to date, but people can fix that in the tally if needed).
Thanks!
-Bertrand
Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
Posted by Anne Kathrine Petterøe <yo...@gmail.com>.
Well, at least I am learning a lot about law and ASF policies, which has been interesting and "fun" on a personal level. However I don't think it has done ESME much good. I hope this issue will resolve itself quickly so that we hopefully can get back on track.
/Anne
On 22 Jan, 2010, at 11:24 , Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> Anne,
>
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Anne Kathrine Petterøe
> <yo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> To be honest it is difficult to work under such circumstances.
>> I am not sure we will get anything done until this issue is resolved...
>
> I can understand that, at the moment being at Apache is bringing ESME
> much more pain than gain.
>
> As to myself, I'm hitting the limits of my volunteer time and energy
> for ESME, so I'll let Robert take the lead in this, as he seems to be
> willing to do. As Gianugo says, it is perfectly possible that this
> will be solved within hours, and I'm hoping for that.
>
> -Bertrand
Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
Anne,
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Anne Kathrine Petterøe
<yo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> To be honest it is difficult to work under such circumstances.
> I am not sure we will get anything done until this issue is resolved...
I can understand that, at the moment being at Apache is bringing ESME
much more pain than gain.
As to myself, I'm hitting the limits of my volunteer time and energy
for ESME, so I'll let Robert take the lead in this, as he seems to be
willing to do. As Gianugo says, it is perfectly possible that this
will be solved within hours, and I'm hoping for that.
-Bertrand
Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
Posted by Gianugo Rabellino <g....@sourcesense.com>.
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Anne Kathrine Petterøe
<yo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Bertrand,
>
> To be honest it is difficult to work under such circumstances.
> I am not sure we will get anything done until this issue is resolved.
I hear you. If it cheers you up somewhat, I hope you can see value in
this somewhat cumbersome process, as at a very least you know we go
the extra mile (and then some) to ensure our developers and users are
protected. This is a big, and almost unique, selling point of Apache -
we do take such issues seriously and while it is easy to dismiss them
as bureaucratic red tape, believe me you really don't want to face the
consequences of mistakes in IP management. While I believe this is a
false positive, we all have to cope with the height we raise our bars:
in our case, we know we have high standards and they unfortunately
come at a price.
The other good news is that Apache has a very, very responsive,
competent and helpful counsel and this is the highest possible
escalation level you will ever hit. I am confident this will be solved
in hours, not days.
--
Gianugo Rabellino
M: +44 779 5364 932 / +39 389 44 26 846
Sourcesense - making sense of Open Source: http://www.sourcesense.com
Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
Posted by Anne Kathrine Petterøe <yo...@gmail.com>.
Bertrand,
To be honest it is difficult to work under such circumstances.
I am not sure we will get anything done until this issue is resolved.
/Anne
On 22 Jan, 2010, at 10:18 , Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 10:11 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin
> <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> i've had time to take a brief look at the mailing lists and IMHO this
>> matter needs to be taken private (and i started the balls rolling for
>> that). i will issue a formal veto with both IPMC and legal hats on in
>> due course. i just wanted to know that i'm going to unsubscribe this
>> email address from these lists until this matter has been sorted out....
>
> So you were not here when we discussed this, now you jump in, say it's
> all wrong, and say you're going to discuss it behind the curtain?
>
> Not fun at all.
>
> And I'm not copying you on this reply, if you're not here anymore
> that's too bad.
>
> ESME folks, hope you're able to continue working without being too
> much disturbed by this, based on the recent discussions here and
> especially on legal-discuss I think Robert is blowing this way out of
> proportion.
>
> I'll let you know when we're back from fight club ;-)
>
> -Bertrand
Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 10:11 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin
<ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> i've had time to take a brief look at the mailing lists and IMHO this
> matter needs to be taken private (and i started the balls rolling for
> that). i will issue a formal veto with both IPMC and legal hats on in
> due course. i just wanted to know that i'm going to unsubscribe this
> email address from these lists until this matter has been sorted out....
So you were not here when we discussed this, now you jump in, say it's
all wrong, and say you're going to discuss it behind the curtain?
Not fun at all.
And I'm not copying you on this reply, if you're not here anymore
that's too bad.
ESME folks, hope you're able to continue working without being too
much disturbed by this, based on the recent discussions here and
especially on legal-discuss I think Robert is blowing this way out of
proportion.
I'll let you know when we're back from fight club ;-)
-Bertrand
Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 10:11 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin
<ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> i've had time to take a brief look at the mailing lists and IMHO this
> matter needs to be taken private (and i started the balls rolling for
> that). i will issue a formal veto with both IPMC and legal hats on in
> due course. i just wanted to know that i'm going to unsubscribe this
> email address from these lists until this matter has been sorted out....
So you were not here when we discussed this, now you jump in, say it's
all wrong, and say you're going to discuss it behind the curtain?
Not fun at all.
And I'm not copying you on this reply, if you're not here anymore
that's too bad.
ESME folks, hope you're able to continue working without being too
much disturbed by this, based on the recent discussions here and
especially on legal-discuss I think Robert is blowing this way out of
proportion.
I'll let you know when we're back from fight club ;-)
-Bertrand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
i've had time to take a brief look at the mailing lists and IMHO this
matter needs to be taken private (and i started the balls rolling for
that). i will issue a formal veto with both IPMC and legal hats on in
due course. i just wanted to know that i'm going to unsubscribe this
email address from these lists until this matter has been sorted out.
if you really feel you must contact me privately, please use my apache
address and note that i will be copying in board and legal on any
communications. i would much prefer members to use the appropriate
private lists. committers are going to need to ask their mentors.
(sorry guys this needs to be take private. the mentors will let you
know when we have a solution. i think ESME's really cool. we've
resolved similar issues before and i'm confident of a happy ending but
you may have to put up with some short term inconvenience.)
- robert
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 6:29 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
<bd...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 11:35 PM, Ethan Jewett <es...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Robert, can you please clarify your concerns:
>>
>> ...2. You are stating that having the notice in the file is dangerous. How?...
>
> This vote suggests the following notice:
>
>> 3. A NOTICE file with the following text will be added:
>> Apache Foo Incubating Code Copyright 2010 The Apache Software Foundation.
>> This product includes software developed at The Apache Software Foundation
>> (http://www.apache.org/).
>
> Apart from "ESME" instead of "foo", I fail to see what could be wrong
> in that ;-)
>
> -Bertrand
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
i've had time to take a brief look at the mailing lists and IMHO this
matter needs to be taken private (and i started the balls rolling for
that). i will issue a formal veto with both IPMC and legal hats on in
due course. i just wanted to know that i'm going to unsubscribe this
email address from these lists until this matter has been sorted out.
if you really feel you must contact me privately, please use my apache
address and note that i will be copying in board and legal on any
communications. i would much prefer members to use the appropriate
private lists. committers are going to need to ask their mentors.
(sorry guys this needs to be take private. the mentors will let you
know when we have a solution. i think ESME's really cool. we've
resolved similar issues before and i'm confident of a happy ending but
you may have to put up with some short term inconvenience.)
- robert
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 6:29 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
<bd...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 11:35 PM, Ethan Jewett <es...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Robert, can you please clarify your concerns:
>>
>> ...2. You are stating that having the notice in the file is dangerous. How?...
>
> This vote suggests the following notice:
>
>> 3. A NOTICE file with the following text will be added:
>> Apache Foo Incubating Code Copyright 2010 The Apache Software Foundation.
>> This product includes software developed at The Apache Software Foundation
>> (http://www.apache.org/).
>
> Apart from "ESME" instead of "foo", I fail to see what could be wrong
> in that ;-)
>
> -Bertrand
>
Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 11:35 PM, Ethan Jewett <es...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Robert, can you please clarify your concerns:
>
> ...2. You are stating that having the notice in the file is dangerous. How?...
This vote suggests the following notice:
> 3. A NOTICE file with the following text will be added:
> Apache Foo Incubating Code Copyright 2010 The Apache Software Foundation.
> This product includes software developed at The Apache Software Foundation
> (http://www.apache.org/).
Apart from "ESME" instead of "foo", I fail to see what could be wrong
in that ;-)
-Bertrand
Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
----- Original Message ----
> From: Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>
> To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Thu, January 21, 2010 11:58:21 AM
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
>
> ----- Original Message ----
>
> > From: Ethan Jewett
> > To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Sent: Wed, January 20, 2010 5:35:09 PM
> > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
> >
> > Robert, can you please clarify your concerns:
> >
> > 1. You have stated that the suggested copyright statement is factually
> > incorrect. I do not see how that is that case, as portions of the
> > files *are* copyright as described.
> >
> > 2. You are stating that having the notice in the file is dangerous. How?
> >
> > Given the extensive prior discussion of this issue and the appearance
> > of a consensus on both this list and the legal-discuss list, I think
> > you owe this project a more thorough explanation along with your veto.
>
> Unfortunately Robert can take his veto, continue to act like a child,
> and apply it to releases as well, as the legal team has the power to
> veto those too. I've requested advice from legal counsel as to
> how to proceed as that is the only way to proceed from here, other
> than complying with Robert's demands until he accedes.
Robert's veto has been invalidated by legal counsel. Count his vote as
a simple -1 and proceeed.
Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
----- Original Message ----
> From: Ethan Jewett <es...@gmail.com>
> To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Wed, January 20, 2010 5:35:09 PM
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
>
> Robert, can you please clarify your concerns:
>
> 1. You have stated that the suggested copyright statement is factually
> incorrect. I do not see how that is that case, as portions of the
> files *are* copyright as described.
>
> 2. You are stating that having the notice in the file is dangerous. How?
>
> Given the extensive prior discussion of this issue and the appearance
> of a consensus on both this list and the legal-discuss list, I think
> you owe this project a more thorough explanation along with your veto.
Unfortunately Robert can take his veto, continue to act like a child,
and apply it to releases as well, as the legal team has the power to
veto those too. I've requested advice from legal counsel as to
how to proceed as that is the only way to proceed from here, other
than complying with Robert's demands until he accedes.
Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
Posted by Ethan Jewett <es...@gmail.com>.
Robert, can you please clarify your concerns:
1. You have stated that the suggested copyright statement is factually
incorrect. I do not see how that is that case, as portions of the
files *are* copyright as described.
2. You are stating that having the notice in the file is dangerous. How?
Given the extensive prior discussion of this issue and the appearance
of a consensus on both this list and the legal-discuss list, I think
you owe this project a more thorough explanation along with your veto.
Thanks,
Ethan
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 5:15 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
<ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 10:08 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> ----- Original Message ----
>>
>>> From: Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>
>>> To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> Sent: Wed, January 20, 2010 5:03:12 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 9:46 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>>> > ----- Original Message ----
>>> >
>>> >> From: Robert Burrell Donkin
>>> >> To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> >> Sent: Wed, January 20, 2010 4:35:25 PM
>>> >> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
>>> >>
>>> >> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 8:47 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>>> >> > ----- Original Message ----
>>> >> >
>>> >> >> From: Robert Burrell Donkin
>>> >> >> To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> >> >> Sent: Wed, January 20, 2010 3:00:33 PM
>>> >> >> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 7:59 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
>>> >> >> wrote:
>>> >> >> > On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 7:11 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
>>> >> >> > wrote:
>>> >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 1:59 AM, Ralph Goers
>>> >> >> wrote:
>>> >> >> >>> ...I suggest you review the thread that was provided and then see if
>>> you
>>> >> >> want to reconsider your veto....
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> As this vote is not about a technical issue, I don't think there are
>>> >> >> >> vetos - we should have explicitely specified that this is a majority
>>> >> >> >> vote.
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> Robert and Gianugo, did you mean to veto this with your -1s, or just
>>> >> >> >> express your disagreement with the majority?
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > i consider making claims about third party copyright ownership rather
>>> >> >> > than a statement of fact is positively dangerous from a legal
>>> >> >> > perspective
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > so, it's a legal team veto until i have chance to review (my exam is
>>> >> >> > tomorrow morning so i should be able to find some time in the
>>> >> >> > afternoon)
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > if anyone objects or feels that i am wrong then please raise on the
>>> >> >> > legal lists. if sam ruby or a majority of the legal team folks feel
>>> >> >> > that i'm wrong then i'm happy to be outvoted.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> BTW Eben Moglen has an excellent article on how to do this right
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Here you've gone completely batshit, as I'm quite certain Eben Moglen has
>>> >> > never written about this precise issue.
>>> >>
>>> >> yes, i'm also sure that Eben Moglen has never written on the matter of
>>> >> whether Esme is right in using that particular phrase
>>> >>
>>> >> he has written on the subject of the right way to include a copyright
>>> >> notice in a derivative work under a different collective copyright and
>>> >> license as illustrated by a bsd->gpl example. (when i have time i'll
>>> >> dig out the link but you'll find it if you google.)
>>> >
>>> > As I'm fairly certain you learned about that article's existence from me
>>> > regarding Thrift lacking ICLAs, I won't bother digging it up and rereading
>>> > it because I'm 100% certain it has nothing to do with the situation at hand.
>>> >
>>> > This is not about derivative works, third party licensing, or collective
>>> > copyright. It's about work contributed to Apache under an ICLA littered
>>> > with onerous copyright notices in the source. The project would very much
>>> > like to dispense with this issue by someone who is not the copyright holder
>>> > (since *that* committer resigned over this issue), moving the notices to a
>>> single
>>> > line in the NOTICE file. They are currently blocked from doing that because
>>> > the legal team's policy doesn't cover that act. Fix that and everyone goes
>>> > away happy.
>>> >
>>> > What that will entail is some attorney presenting to the legal team an
>>> > assessment of the legal risks the org assumes by writing that into the policy.
>>> > Once it has been explained, the legal team can vote to accept the risk
>>> > and adopt the policy. It will take lots of time and energy, and since you
>>> > are so concerned about the wrong thing taking place in the interim, perhaps
>>> > you can be the one to champion this issue for the project while they wait
>>> > for you to carry out what the rest of the legal team seems relatively
>>> > unconcerned about.
>>>
>>> the copyright notices in the file are factually incorrect. this should
>>> be addressed.
>>
>> How so? Nobody's touched them except for the committer who put them there.
>>
>>> Eben Moglen's article gives advice on the right way to
>>> deal with this. the rest is politics and i don't have the cycles for
>>> that ATM.
>>
>> Not by a long shot, because his article deals with the case of mixed open source
>> licenses.
>
> he deals with the problem of factually accurate statements about
> copyright as part of his treatment of that subject
>
>> The agreement here is the CLA, not the Apache License or some other
>> open source license.
>
> my point has nothing to do with that: my point is that the statement
> is not correct and moreover is dangerous
>
>>> the rest is politics and i don't have the cycles for that ATM.
>>
>> Well since I've answered your issues, I'd like to ask that you retract your veto.,
>
> my veto is valid since you missed entirely my point and have failed to
> address it
>
> - robert
>
Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
----- Original Message ----
> From: Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>
> To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Wed, January 20, 2010 5:15:11 PM
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
>
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 10:08 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> > ----- Original Message ----
> >
> >> From: Robert Burrell Donkin
> >> To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> Sent: Wed, January 20, 2010 5:03:12 PM
> >> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 9:46 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> >> > ----- Original Message ----
> >> >
> >> >> From: Robert Burrell Donkin
> >> >> To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> >> Sent: Wed, January 20, 2010 4:35:25 PM
> >> >> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
> >> >>
> >> >> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 8:47 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> >> >> > ----- Original Message ----
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> From: Robert Burrell Donkin
> >> >> >> To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> >> >> Sent: Wed, January 20, 2010 3:00:33 PM
> >> >> >> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 7:59 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> > On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 7:11 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> >> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 1:59 AM, Ralph Goers
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>> ...I suggest you review the thread that was provided and then see
> if
> >> you
> >> >> >> want to reconsider your veto....
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> As this vote is not about a technical issue, I don't think there are
> >> >> >> >> vetos - we should have explicitely specified that this is a majority
> >> >> >> >> vote.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Robert and Gianugo, did you mean to veto this with your -1s, or just
> >> >> >> >> express your disagreement with the majority?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > i consider making claims about third party copyright ownership rather
> >> >> >> > than a statement of fact is positively dangerous from a legal
> >> >> >> > perspective
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > so, it's a legal team veto until i have chance to review (my exam is
> >> >> >> > tomorrow morning so i should be able to find some time in the
> >> >> >> > afternoon)
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > if anyone objects or feels that i am wrong then please raise on the
> >> >> >> > legal lists. if sam ruby or a majority of the legal team folks feel
> >> >> >> > that i'm wrong then i'm happy to be outvoted.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> BTW Eben Moglen has an excellent article on how to do this right
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Here you've gone completely batshit, as I'm quite certain Eben Moglen
> has
> >> >> > never written about this precise issue.
> >> >>
> >> >> yes, i'm also sure that Eben Moglen has never written on the matter of
> >> >> whether Esme is right in using that particular phrase
> >> >>
> >> >> he has written on the subject of the right way to include a copyright
> >> >> notice in a derivative work under a different collective copyright and
> >> >> license as illustrated by a bsd->gpl example. (when i have time i'll
> >> >> dig out the link but you'll find it if you google.)
> >> >
> >> > As I'm fairly certain you learned about that article's existence from me
> >> > regarding Thrift lacking ICLAs, I won't bother digging it up and rereading
> >> > it because I'm 100% certain it has nothing to do with the situation at
> hand.
> >> >
> >> > This is not about derivative works, third party licensing, or collective
> >> > copyright. It's about work contributed to Apache under an ICLA littered
> >> > with onerous copyright notices in the source. The project would very much
> >> > like to dispense with this issue by someone who is not the copyright holder
> >> > (since *that* committer resigned over this issue), moving the notices to a
> >> single
> >> > line in the NOTICE file. They are currently blocked from doing that
> because
> >> > the legal team's policy doesn't cover that act. Fix that and everyone goes
> >> > away happy.
> >> >
> >> > What that will entail is some attorney presenting to the legal team an
> >> > assessment of the legal risks the org assumes by writing that into the
> policy.
> >> > Once it has been explained, the legal team can vote to accept the risk
> >> > and adopt the policy. It will take lots of time and energy, and since you
> >> > are so concerned about the wrong thing taking place in the interim, perhaps
> >> > you can be the one to champion this issue for the project while they wait
> >> > for you to carry out what the rest of the legal team seems relatively
> >> > unconcerned about.
> >>
> >> the copyright notices in the file are factually incorrect. this should
> >> be addressed.
> >
> > How so? Nobody's touched them except for the committer who put them there.
> >
> >> Eben Moglen's article gives advice on the right way to
> >> deal with this. the rest is politics and i don't have the cycles for
> >> that ATM.
> >
> > Not by a long shot, because his article deals with the case of mixed open
> source
> > licenses.
>
> he deals with the problem of factually accurate statements about
> copyright as part of his treatment of that subject
I have no fucking idea what you are harping on, perhaps it is the word "portions"
that has your panties in a bunch. That's all that's being proposed in this vote,
adding the word "portions" to a preexisting copyright statement. I fail to see
the innacuracy of that word in the context of the ASF unless you are worried
about the case where the word "portions" should be interpreted as "everything".
FWIW, here is the SFLC article in question:
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2007/gpl-non-gpl-collaboration.html
I'd be happy to read the article to you someday since it's clear you haven't,
I will just point out that the instructions there about copyright notices
are there because the open source license in question demands for them to be
preserved. The ICLA is not in that category, period.
>
> > The agreement here is the CLA, not the Apache License or some other
> > open source license.
>
> my point has nothing to do with that: my point is that the statement
> is not correct and moreover is dangerous
The "portions" addition? Incorrect? Dangerous? Really? I wonder how it
esapeded your peers as well as the attorneys that read legal-discuss for
content.
> >> the rest is politics and i don't have the cycles for that ATM.
> >
> > Well since I've answered your issues, I'd like to ask that you retract your
> veto.,
>
> my veto is valid since you missed entirely my point and have failed to
> address it
So I've tried again. This time I hope my answers are satisfactory.
Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 10:08 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----
>
>> From: Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>
>> To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Sent: Wed, January 20, 2010 5:03:12 PM
>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 9:46 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>> > ----- Original Message ----
>> >
>> >> From: Robert Burrell Donkin
>> >> To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> >> Sent: Wed, January 20, 2010 4:35:25 PM
>> >> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 8:47 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>> >> > ----- Original Message ----
>> >> >
>> >> >> From: Robert Burrell Donkin
>> >> >> To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> >> >> Sent: Wed, January 20, 2010 3:00:33 PM
>> >> >> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 7:59 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> > On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 7:11 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
>> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 1:59 AM, Ralph Goers
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >>> ...I suggest you review the thread that was provided and then see if
>> you
>> >> >> want to reconsider your veto....
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> As this vote is not about a technical issue, I don't think there are
>> >> >> >> vetos - we should have explicitely specified that this is a majority
>> >> >> >> vote.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Robert and Gianugo, did you mean to veto this with your -1s, or just
>> >> >> >> express your disagreement with the majority?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > i consider making claims about third party copyright ownership rather
>> >> >> > than a statement of fact is positively dangerous from a legal
>> >> >> > perspective
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > so, it's a legal team veto until i have chance to review (my exam is
>> >> >> > tomorrow morning so i should be able to find some time in the
>> >> >> > afternoon)
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > if anyone objects or feels that i am wrong then please raise on the
>> >> >> > legal lists. if sam ruby or a majority of the legal team folks feel
>> >> >> > that i'm wrong then i'm happy to be outvoted.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> BTW Eben Moglen has an excellent article on how to do this right
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Here you've gone completely batshit, as I'm quite certain Eben Moglen has
>> >> > never written about this precise issue.
>> >>
>> >> yes, i'm also sure that Eben Moglen has never written on the matter of
>> >> whether Esme is right in using that particular phrase
>> >>
>> >> he has written on the subject of the right way to include a copyright
>> >> notice in a derivative work under a different collective copyright and
>> >> license as illustrated by a bsd->gpl example. (when i have time i'll
>> >> dig out the link but you'll find it if you google.)
>> >
>> > As I'm fairly certain you learned about that article's existence from me
>> > regarding Thrift lacking ICLAs, I won't bother digging it up and rereading
>> > it because I'm 100% certain it has nothing to do with the situation at hand.
>> >
>> > This is not about derivative works, third party licensing, or collective
>> > copyright. It's about work contributed to Apache under an ICLA littered
>> > with onerous copyright notices in the source. The project would very much
>> > like to dispense with this issue by someone who is not the copyright holder
>> > (since *that* committer resigned over this issue), moving the notices to a
>> single
>> > line in the NOTICE file. They are currently blocked from doing that because
>> > the legal team's policy doesn't cover that act. Fix that and everyone goes
>> > away happy.
>> >
>> > What that will entail is some attorney presenting to the legal team an
>> > assessment of the legal risks the org assumes by writing that into the policy.
>> > Once it has been explained, the legal team can vote to accept the risk
>> > and adopt the policy. It will take lots of time and energy, and since you
>> > are so concerned about the wrong thing taking place in the interim, perhaps
>> > you can be the one to champion this issue for the project while they wait
>> > for you to carry out what the rest of the legal team seems relatively
>> > unconcerned about.
>>
>> the copyright notices in the file are factually incorrect. this should
>> be addressed.
>
> How so? Nobody's touched them except for the committer who put them there.
>
>> Eben Moglen's article gives advice on the right way to
>> deal with this. the rest is politics and i don't have the cycles for
>> that ATM.
>
> Not by a long shot, because his article deals with the case of mixed open source
> licenses.
he deals with the problem of factually accurate statements about
copyright as part of his treatment of that subject
> The agreement here is the CLA, not the Apache License or some other
> open source license.
my point has nothing to do with that: my point is that the statement
is not correct and moreover is dangerous
>> the rest is politics and i don't have the cycles for that ATM.
>
> Well since I've answered your issues, I'd like to ask that you retract your veto.,
my veto is valid since you missed entirely my point and have failed to
address it
- robert
Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
----- Original Message ----
> From: Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>
> To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Wed, January 20, 2010 5:03:12 PM
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
>
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 9:46 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> > ----- Original Message ----
> >
> >> From: Robert Burrell Donkin
> >> To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> Sent: Wed, January 20, 2010 4:35:25 PM
> >> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 8:47 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> >> > ----- Original Message ----
> >> >
> >> >> From: Robert Burrell Donkin
> >> >> To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> >> Sent: Wed, January 20, 2010 3:00:33 PM
> >> >> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
> >> >>
> >> >> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 7:59 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> > On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 7:11 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 1:59 AM, Ralph Goers
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >>> ...I suggest you review the thread that was provided and then see if
> you
> >> >> want to reconsider your veto....
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> As this vote is not about a technical issue, I don't think there are
> >> >> >> vetos - we should have explicitely specified that this is a majority
> >> >> >> vote.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Robert and Gianugo, did you mean to veto this with your -1s, or just
> >> >> >> express your disagreement with the majority?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > i consider making claims about third party copyright ownership rather
> >> >> > than a statement of fact is positively dangerous from a legal
> >> >> > perspective
> >> >> >
> >> >> > so, it's a legal team veto until i have chance to review (my exam is
> >> >> > tomorrow morning so i should be able to find some time in the
> >> >> > afternoon)
> >> >> >
> >> >> > if anyone objects or feels that i am wrong then please raise on the
> >> >> > legal lists. if sam ruby or a majority of the legal team folks feel
> >> >> > that i'm wrong then i'm happy to be outvoted.
> >> >>
> >> >> BTW Eben Moglen has an excellent article on how to do this right
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Here you've gone completely batshit, as I'm quite certain Eben Moglen has
> >> > never written about this precise issue.
> >>
> >> yes, i'm also sure that Eben Moglen has never written on the matter of
> >> whether Esme is right in using that particular phrase
> >>
> >> he has written on the subject of the right way to include a copyright
> >> notice in a derivative work under a different collective copyright and
> >> license as illustrated by a bsd->gpl example. (when i have time i'll
> >> dig out the link but you'll find it if you google.)
> >
> > As I'm fairly certain you learned about that article's existence from me
> > regarding Thrift lacking ICLAs, I won't bother digging it up and rereading
> > it because I'm 100% certain it has nothing to do with the situation at hand.
> >
> > This is not about derivative works, third party licensing, or collective
> > copyright. It's about work contributed to Apache under an ICLA littered
> > with onerous copyright notices in the source. The project would very much
> > like to dispense with this issue by someone who is not the copyright holder
> > (since *that* committer resigned over this issue), moving the notices to a
> single
> > line in the NOTICE file. They are currently blocked from doing that because
> > the legal team's policy doesn't cover that act. Fix that and everyone goes
> > away happy.
> >
> > What that will entail is some attorney presenting to the legal team an
> > assessment of the legal risks the org assumes by writing that into the policy.
> > Once it has been explained, the legal team can vote to accept the risk
> > and adopt the policy. It will take lots of time and energy, and since you
> > are so concerned about the wrong thing taking place in the interim, perhaps
> > you can be the one to champion this issue for the project while they wait
> > for you to carry out what the rest of the legal team seems relatively
> > unconcerned about.
>
> the copyright notices in the file are factually incorrect. this should
> be addressed.
How so? Nobody's touched them except for the committer who put them there.
> Eben Moglen's article gives advice on the right way to
> deal with this. the rest is politics and i don't have the cycles for
> that ATM.
Not by a long shot, because his article deals with the case of mixed open source
licenses. The agreement here is the CLA, not the Apache License or some other
open source license.
> the rest is politics and i don't have the cycles for that ATM.
Well since I've answered your issues, I'd like to ask that you retract your veto.,
Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 9:46 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----
>
>> From: Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>
>> To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Sent: Wed, January 20, 2010 4:35:25 PM
>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 8:47 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>> > ----- Original Message ----
>> >
>> >> From: Robert Burrell Donkin
>> >> To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> >> Sent: Wed, January 20, 2010 3:00:33 PM
>> >> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 7:59 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 7:11 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 1:59 AM, Ralph Goers
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >>> ...I suggest you review the thread that was provided and then see if you
>> >> want to reconsider your veto....
>> >> >>
>> >> >> As this vote is not about a technical issue, I don't think there are
>> >> >> vetos - we should have explicitely specified that this is a majority
>> >> >> vote.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Robert and Gianugo, did you mean to veto this with your -1s, or just
>> >> >> express your disagreement with the majority?
>> >> >
>> >> > i consider making claims about third party copyright ownership rather
>> >> > than a statement of fact is positively dangerous from a legal
>> >> > perspective
>> >> >
>> >> > so, it's a legal team veto until i have chance to review (my exam is
>> >> > tomorrow morning so i should be able to find some time in the
>> >> > afternoon)
>> >> >
>> >> > if anyone objects or feels that i am wrong then please raise on the
>> >> > legal lists. if sam ruby or a majority of the legal team folks feel
>> >> > that i'm wrong then i'm happy to be outvoted.
>> >>
>> >> BTW Eben Moglen has an excellent article on how to do this right
>> >>
>> >
>> > Here you've gone completely batshit, as I'm quite certain Eben Moglen has
>> > never written about this precise issue.
>>
>> yes, i'm also sure that Eben Moglen has never written on the matter of
>> whether Esme is right in using that particular phrase
>>
>> he has written on the subject of the right way to include a copyright
>> notice in a derivative work under a different collective copyright and
>> license as illustrated by a bsd->gpl example. (when i have time i'll
>> dig out the link but you'll find it if you google.)
>
> As I'm fairly certain you learned about that article's existence from me
> regarding Thrift lacking ICLAs, I won't bother digging it up and rereading
> it because I'm 100% certain it has nothing to do with the situation at hand.
>
> This is not about derivative works, third party licensing, or collective
> copyright. It's about work contributed to Apache under an ICLA littered
> with onerous copyright notices in the source. The project would very much
> like to dispense with this issue by someone who is not the copyright holder
> (since *that* committer resigned over this issue), moving the notices to a single
> line in the NOTICE file. They are currently blocked from doing that because
> the legal team's policy doesn't cover that act. Fix that and everyone goes
> away happy.
>
> What that will entail is some attorney presenting to the legal team an
> assessment of the legal risks the org assumes by writing that into the policy.
> Once it has been explained, the legal team can vote to accept the risk
> and adopt the policy. It will take lots of time and energy, and since you
> are so concerned about the wrong thing taking place in the interim, perhaps
> you can be the one to champion this issue for the project while they wait
> for you to carry out what the rest of the legal team seems relatively
> unconcerned about.
the copyright notices in the file are factually incorrect. this should
be addressed. Eben Moglen's article gives advice on the right way to
deal with this. the rest is politics and i don't have the cycles for
that ATM.
- robert
Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
----- Original Message ----
> From: Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>
> To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Wed, January 20, 2010 4:35:25 PM
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
>
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 8:47 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> > ----- Original Message ----
> >
> >> From: Robert Burrell Donkin
> >> To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> Sent: Wed, January 20, 2010 3:00:33 PM
> >> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 7:59 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 7:11 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 1:59 AM, Ralph Goers
> >> wrote:
> >> >>> ...I suggest you review the thread that was provided and then see if you
> >> want to reconsider your veto....
> >> >>
> >> >> As this vote is not about a technical issue, I don't think there are
> >> >> vetos - we should have explicitely specified that this is a majority
> >> >> vote.
> >> >>
> >> >> Robert and Gianugo, did you mean to veto this with your -1s, or just
> >> >> express your disagreement with the majority?
> >> >
> >> > i consider making claims about third party copyright ownership rather
> >> > than a statement of fact is positively dangerous from a legal
> >> > perspective
> >> >
> >> > so, it's a legal team veto until i have chance to review (my exam is
> >> > tomorrow morning so i should be able to find some time in the
> >> > afternoon)
> >> >
> >> > if anyone objects or feels that i am wrong then please raise on the
> >> > legal lists. if sam ruby or a majority of the legal team folks feel
> >> > that i'm wrong then i'm happy to be outvoted.
> >>
> >> BTW Eben Moglen has an excellent article on how to do this right
> >>
> >
> > Here you've gone completely batshit, as I'm quite certain Eben Moglen has
> > never written about this precise issue.
>
> yes, i'm also sure that Eben Moglen has never written on the matter of
> whether Esme is right in using that particular phrase
>
> he has written on the subject of the right way to include a copyright
> notice in a derivative work under a different collective copyright and
> license as illustrated by a bsd->gpl example. (when i have time i'll
> dig out the link but you'll find it if you google.)
As I'm fairly certain you learned about that article's existence from me
regarding Thrift lacking ICLAs, I won't bother digging it up and rereading
it because I'm 100% certain it has nothing to do with the situation at hand.
This is not about derivative works, third party licensing, or collective
copyright. It's about work contributed to Apache under an ICLA littered
with onerous copyright notices in the source. The project would very much
like to dispense with this issue by someone who is not the copyright holder
(since *that* committer resigned over this issue), moving the notices to a single
line in the NOTICE file. They are currently blocked from doing that because
the legal team's policy doesn't cover that act. Fix that and everyone goes
away happy.
What that will entail is some attorney presenting to the legal team an
assessment of the legal risks the org assumes by writing that into the policy.
Once it has been explained, the legal team can vote to accept the risk
and adopt the policy. It will take lots of time and energy, and since you
are so concerned about the wrong thing taking place in the interim, perhaps
you can be the one to champion this issue for the project while they wait
for you to carry out what the rest of the legal team seems relatively
unconcerned about.
>
> - robert
Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 8:47 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----
>
>> From: Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>
>> To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Sent: Wed, January 20, 2010 3:00:33 PM
>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 7:59 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
>> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 7:11 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
>> > wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 1:59 AM, Ralph Goers
>> wrote:
>> >>> ...I suggest you review the thread that was provided and then see if you
>> want to reconsider your veto....
>> >>
>> >> As this vote is not about a technical issue, I don't think there are
>> >> vetos - we should have explicitely specified that this is a majority
>> >> vote.
>> >>
>> >> Robert and Gianugo, did you mean to veto this with your -1s, or just
>> >> express your disagreement with the majority?
>> >
>> > i consider making claims about third party copyright ownership rather
>> > than a statement of fact is positively dangerous from a legal
>> > perspective
>> >
>> > so, it's a legal team veto until i have chance to review (my exam is
>> > tomorrow morning so i should be able to find some time in the
>> > afternoon)
>> >
>> > if anyone objects or feels that i am wrong then please raise on the
>> > legal lists. if sam ruby or a majority of the legal team folks feel
>> > that i'm wrong then i'm happy to be outvoted.
>>
>> BTW Eben Moglen has an excellent article on how to do this right
>>
>
> Here you've gone completely batshit, as I'm quite certain Eben Moglen has
> never written about this precise issue.
yes, i'm also sure that Eben Moglen has never written on the matter of
whether Esme is right in using that particular phrase
he has written on the subject of the right way to include a copyright
notice in a derivative work under a different collective copyright and
license as illustrated by a bsd->gpl example. (when i have time i'll
dig out the link but you'll find it if you google.)
- robert
Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
----- Original Message ----
> From: Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>
> To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Wed, January 20, 2010 3:00:33 PM
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
>
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 7:59 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 7:11 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> > wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 1:59 AM, Ralph Goers
> wrote:
> >>> ...I suggest you review the thread that was provided and then see if you
> want to reconsider your veto....
> >>
> >> As this vote is not about a technical issue, I don't think there are
> >> vetos - we should have explicitely specified that this is a majority
> >> vote.
> >>
> >> Robert and Gianugo, did you mean to veto this with your -1s, or just
> >> express your disagreement with the majority?
> >
> > i consider making claims about third party copyright ownership rather
> > than a statement of fact is positively dangerous from a legal
> > perspective
> >
> > so, it's a legal team veto until i have chance to review (my exam is
> > tomorrow morning so i should be able to find some time in the
> > afternoon)
> >
> > if anyone objects or feels that i am wrong then please raise on the
> > legal lists. if sam ruby or a majority of the legal team folks feel
> > that i'm wrong then i'm happy to be outvoted.
>
> BTW Eben Moglen has an excellent article on how to do this right
>
Here you've gone completely batshit, as I'm quite certain Eben Moglen has
never written about this precise issue.
Grow up Robert. It's the legal team's policy that is being exploited by
a committer who knows what is written down. Fix the damned policy so
it actually supports rational behavior by project members and ALL my
complaints, as well as Gianugo's complaints, disappear.
Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 7:59 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
<ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 7:11 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> <bd...@apache.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 1:59 AM, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>>> ...I suggest you review the thread that was provided and then see if you want to reconsider your veto....
>>
>> As this vote is not about a technical issue, I don't think there are
>> vetos - we should have explicitely specified that this is a majority
>> vote.
>>
>> Robert and Gianugo, did you mean to veto this with your -1s, or just
>> express your disagreement with the majority?
>
> i consider making claims about third party copyright ownership rather
> than a statement of fact is positively dangerous from a legal
> perspective
>
> so, it's a legal team veto until i have chance to review (my exam is
> tomorrow morning so i should be able to find some time in the
> afternoon)
>
> if anyone objects or feels that i am wrong then please raise on the
> legal lists. if sam ruby or a majority of the legal team folks feel
> that i'm wrong then i'm happy to be outvoted.
BTW Eben Moglen has an excellent article on how to do this right
- robert
Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 8:59 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
<ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 7:11 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> <bd...@apache.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 1:59 AM, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>>> ...I suggest you review the thread that was provided and then see if you want to reconsider your veto....
>>
>> As this vote is not about a technical issue, I don't think there are
>> vetos - we should have explicitely specified that this is a majority
>> vote.
>>
>> Robert and Gianugo, did you mean to veto this with your -1s, or just
>> express your disagreement with the majority?
>
> i consider making claims about third party copyright ownership rather
> than a statement of fact is positively dangerous from a legal
> perspective
>
> so, it's a legal team veto until i have chance to review (my exam is
> tomorrow morning so i should be able to find some time in the
> afternoon)...
Ok, this should leave enough time for you to review within this vote's
72 hours duration ;-)
Please review this thread on the legal-discuss list, in particular:
http://markmail.org/thread/fy3gfbgezgkcq44j
Several experienced folks have voiced their opinions there, we didn't
just make this up out of thin air.
-Bertrand
Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 7:11 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
<bd...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 1:59 AM, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>> ...I suggest you review the thread that was provided and then see if you want to reconsider your veto....
>
> As this vote is not about a technical issue, I don't think there are
> vetos - we should have explicitely specified that this is a majority
> vote.
>
> Robert and Gianugo, did you mean to veto this with your -1s, or just
> express your disagreement with the majority?
i consider making claims about third party copyright ownership rather
than a statement of fact is positively dangerous from a legal
perspective
so, it's a legal team veto until i have chance to review (my exam is
tomorrow morning so i should be able to find some time in the
afternoon)
if anyone objects or feels that i am wrong then please raise on the
legal lists. if sam ruby or a majority of the legal team folks feel
that i'm wrong then i'm happy to be outvoted.
- robert
Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
Posted by Santiago Gala <sa...@gmail.com>.
Let me be clear too, I'm not trying to mess with the vote in any way,
just wondering if my email account was going nuts, as I've seen a
couple of gmail hiccups in the last days and was over-sensitive... :)
2010/1/20 Gianugo Rabellino <gi...@gmail.com>:
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 1:48 PM, Gianugo Rabellino <gi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 1:02 PM, Santiago Gala <sa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Robert and Gianugo, did you mean to veto this with your -1s, or just
>>>> express your disagreement with the majority?
>>>
>>> I might be thick or gmail buggy, but where is Gianugo's -1 ? I can't find it...
>>
>> I just replied to the wrong email which wasn't cc'd here, apologies.
>> So let me restate here: it's a non-binding, non-vetoeing -1 based on
>
> [...]
>
> I should add: this is not an attempt to rehash a discussion that has
> been going on forever, merely a due justification for a -1 as my
> arguments have been expressed on esme-dev and not here.
>
> --
> Gianugo
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
Posted by Gianugo Rabellino <gi...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 1:48 PM, Gianugo Rabellino <gi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 1:02 PM, Santiago Gala <sa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Robert and Gianugo, did you mean to veto this with your -1s, or just
>>> express your disagreement with the majority?
>>
>> I might be thick or gmail buggy, but where is Gianugo's -1 ? I can't find it...
>
> I just replied to the wrong email which wasn't cc'd here, apologies.
> So let me restate here: it's a non-binding, non-vetoeing -1 based on
[...]
I should add: this is not an attempt to rehash a discussion that has
been going on forever, merely a due justification for a -1 as my
arguments have been expressed on esme-dev and not here.
--
Gianugo
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
Posted by Gianugo Rabellino <gi...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 1:02 PM, Santiago Gala <sa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Robert and Gianugo, did you mean to veto this with your -1s, or just
>> express your disagreement with the majority?
>
> I might be thick or gmail buggy, but where is Gianugo's -1 ? I can't find it...
I just replied to the wrong email which wasn't cc'd here, apologies.
So let me restate here: it's a non-binding, non-vetoeing -1 based on
the fact I think this solution is (a) incompatible with our own policy
and (b) makes a special case for an individual which is both unfair
(towards people and organizations who contributed significantly more)
and a precedent for others to claim they should receive the same
treatment.
--
Gianugo
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
Posted by Santiago Gala <sa...@gmail.com>.
Definitely a case of buggy gmail/our list software, it is not here...
I'm loosing more and more emails messages without any warning, and I'd
like to know if it is trouble in our infrastructure or in gmail.
Anybody knows?
Regards
Santiago
2010/1/20 Richard Hirsch <hi...@gmail.com>:
> Check his email from Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 5:06 PM
>
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 1:02 PM, Santiago Gala <sa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Robert and Gianugo, did you mean to veto this with your -1s, or just
>>> express your disagreement with the majority?
>>
>> I might be thick or gmail buggy, but where is Gianugo's -1 ? I can't find it...
>>
>> Regards
>> Santiago
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
Posted by Richard Hirsch <hi...@gmail.com>.
Check his email from Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 5:06 PM
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 1:02 PM, Santiago Gala <sa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Robert and Gianugo, did you mean to veto this with your -1s, or just
>> express your disagreement with the majority?
>
> I might be thick or gmail buggy, but where is Gianugo's -1 ? I can't find it...
>
> Regards
> Santiago
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 1:02 PM, Santiago Gala <sa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Robert and Gianugo, did you mean to veto this with your -1s, or just
>> express your disagreement with the majority?
>
> I might be thick or gmail buggy, but where is Gianugo's -1 ? I can't find it...
It's on esme-dev only, wasn't CCed here:
http://markmail.org/message/njvhvrtvtqm4d2ix
-Bertrand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
Posted by Santiago Gala <sa...@gmail.com>.
> Robert and Gianugo, did you mean to veto this with your -1s, or just
> express your disagreement with the majority?
I might be thick or gmail buggy, but where is Gianugo's -1 ? I can't find it...
Regards
Santiago
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
Posted by Gianugo Rabellino <gi...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 8:11 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
<bd...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 1:59 AM, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>> ...I suggest you review the thread that was provided and then see if you want to reconsider your veto....
>
> As this vote is not about a technical issue, I don't think there are
> vetos - we should have explicitely specified that this is a majority
> vote.
>
> Robert and Gianugo, did you mean to veto this with your -1s, or just
> express your disagreement with the majority?
"Just" a strong disagreement.
--
Gianugo
Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 1:59 AM, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> ...I suggest you review the thread that was provided and then see if you want to reconsider your veto....
As this vote is not about a technical issue, I don't think there are
vetos - we should have explicitely specified that this is a majority
vote.
Robert and Gianugo, did you mean to veto this with your -1s, or just
express your disagreement with the majority?
-Bertrand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 1:59 AM, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> ...I suggest you review the thread that was provided and then see if you want to reconsider your veto....
As this vote is not about a technical issue, I don't think there are
vetos - we should have explicitely specified that this is a majority
vote.
Robert and Gianugo, did you mean to veto this with your -1s, or just
express your disagreement with the majority?
-Bertrand
Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
On Jan 19, 2010, at 8:51 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Anne Kathrine Petterøe
> <yo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> PPMC and IPMC, please re-vote on the following regarding copyright issue ESME-47.
>
> <snip>
>
>> 2. The Apache License block will be followed by a legacy comment (Only in files where the WorldWide Conferencing notice currently exists, except any files where user dpp has not made any contribution):
>> /* * Portions Copyright 2009 WorldWide Conferencing, LLC */
>
> <ipmc-hat><legal-hat><ianal>
>
> if this language has not been cleared with our lawyers on legal-private then :
>
> * i'm -1 on this phrasing
> * please raise a legal JIRA for appropriate language
>
As others have said, this has been discussed at length on legal-discuss. The "lawyers" have expressed their opinion (that it mostly doesn't matter). I think requesting a Jira issue for this is a bad idea because a) it is highly unlikely that the result will be different and b) legal Jira issues aren't noted for being resolved quickly and c) Jira issues are resolved by lawyers.
I suggest you review the thread that was provided and then see if you want to reconsider your veto.
Ralph
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Anne Kathrine Petterøe
<yo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> PPMC and IPMC, please re-vote on the following regarding copyright issue ESME-47.
<snip>
> 2. The Apache License block will be followed by a legacy comment (Only in files where the WorldWide Conferencing notice currently exists, except any files where user dpp has not made any contribution):
> /* * Portions Copyright 2009 WorldWide Conferencing, LLC */
<ipmc-hat><legal-hat><ianal>
if this language has not been cleared with our lawyers on legal-private then :
* i'm -1 on this phrasing
* please raise a legal JIRA for appropriate language
</ianal></legal-hat></ipmc-hat>
the reason for this veto is that i believe that this phrasing is
1. potentially untrue
for example, if at some future time someone decides to revert all the
relevant commits - or in time the code is so extensively revised then
no portions of the code will be subject to that copyright and the
statement will be untrue.
2. potentially dangerous
for example it could be read as a claim rather than a statement
AIUI (please jump in if i'm wrong) some source files was derived from
originals that contained the notice "Copyright 2009 WorldWide
Conferencing, LLC". something along the lines below seems to me more
truthful:
/*
* This document was derived from an original containing the following
copyright notice:
*
* Copyright 2009 WorldWide Conferencing, LLC
*
*/
but IMO this is a job for a lawyer
- robert
Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
Posted by Gianugo Rabellino <g....@sourcesense.com>.
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Anne Kathrine Petterøe
<yo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> PPMC and IPMC, please re-vote on the following regarding copyright issue ESME-47.
For the sake of consistency (both with the ASF policy, and myself), I
still wish to register 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] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
Posted by "dhague@fortybeans.com" <dh...@fortybeans.com>.
+1
I quite like Apache Foo ;-)
On 19 January 2010 at 12:10 "Anne Kathrine Petterøe" <yo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> PPMC and IPMC, please re-vote on the following regarding copyright issue
> ESME-47.
>
> 1. The Apache license block will be added at the beginning of each source
> file:
> /* Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more
> * contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file distributed with
> * this work for additional information regarding copyright ownership.
> * The ASF licenses this file to You under the Apache License, Version 2.0
> * (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with
> * the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at *
> * http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 *
> * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
> * distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
> * WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
> * See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
> * limitations under the License. */
>
> 2. The Apache License block will be followed by a legacy comment (Only in
> files where the WorldWide Conferencing notice currently exists, except any
> files where user dpp has not made any contribution):
> /* * Portions Copyright 2009 WorldWide Conferencing, LLC */
>
> 3. A NOTICE file with the following text will be added:
> Apache Foo Incubating Code Copyright 2010 The Apache Software Foundation.
> This product includes software developed at The Apache Software Foundation
> (http://www.apache.org/).
>
>
> 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] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Anne Kathrine Petterøe
<yo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> PPMC and IPMC, please re-vote on the following regarding copyright issue ESME-47.
<snip>
> 2. The Apache License block will be followed by a legacy comment (Only in files where the WorldWide Conferencing notice currently exists, except any files where user dpp has not made any contribution):
> /* * Portions Copyright 2009 WorldWide Conferencing, LLC */
<ipmc-hat><legal-hat><ianal>
if this language has not been cleared with our lawyers on legal-private then :
* i'm -1 on this phrasing
* please raise a legal JIRA for appropriate language
</ianal></legal-hat></ipmc-hat>
the reason for this veto is that i believe that this phrasing is
1. potentially untrue
for example, if at some future time someone decides to revert all the
relevant commits - or in time the code is so extensively revised then
no portions of the code will be subject to that copyright and the
statement will be untrue.
2. potentially dangerous
for example it could be read as a claim rather than a statement
AIUI (please jump in if i'm wrong) some source files was derived from
originals that contained the notice "Copyright 2009 WorldWide
Conferencing, LLC". something along the lines below seems to me more
truthful:
/*
* This document was derived from an original containing the following
copyright notice:
*
* Copyright 2009 WorldWide Conferencing, LLC
*
*/
but IMO this is a job for a lawyer
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
Posted by Ethan Jewett <es...@gmail.com>.
+1
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 6:10 AM, Anne Kathrine Petterøe
<yo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> PPMC and IPMC, please re-vote on the following regarding copyright issue ESME-47.
>
> 1. The Apache license block will be added at the beginning of each source file:
> /* Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more
> * contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file distributed with
> * this work for additional information regarding copyright ownership.
> * The ASF licenses this file to You under the Apache License, Version 2.0
> * (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with
> * the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at *
> * http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 *
> * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
> * distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
> * WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
> * See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
> * limitations under the License. */
>
> 2. The Apache License block will be followed by a legacy comment (Only in files where the WorldWide Conferencing notice currently exists, except any files where user dpp has not made any contribution):
> /* * Portions Copyright 2009 WorldWide Conferencing, LLC */
>
> 3. A NOTICE file with the following text will be added:
> Apache Foo Incubating Code Copyright 2010 The Apache Software Foundation.
> This product includes software developed at The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
>
>
> 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] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
+1
----- Original Message ----
> From: Anne Kathrine Petterøe <yo...@gmail.com>
> To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: general@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Tue, January 19, 2010 6:28:49 AM
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
>
> Not my day for multi-tasking apparently, sorry...
> "Apache ESME" of course.
>
> +1
>
>
> On 19 Jan, 2010, at 12:25 , Richard Hirsch wrote:
>
> > The NOTICE should say "Apache ESME" instead of "Apache Foo"
> >
> > +1
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 12:17 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> > wrote:
> >> (ccing both lists now..)
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Anne Kathrine Petterøe
> >> wrote:
> >>> PPMC and IPMC, please re-vote on the following regarding copyright issue
> ESME-47.
> >>
> >> +1 on what's suggested below (IPMC binding)
> >> -Bertrand
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> 1. The Apache license block will be added at the beginning of each source
> file:
> >>> /* Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more
> >>> * contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file distributed with
> >>> * this work for additional information regarding copyright ownership.
> >>> * The ASF licenses this file to You under the Apache License, Version 2.0
> >>> * (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with
> >>> * the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at *
> >>> * http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 *
> >>> * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
> >>> * distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
> >>> * WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
> >>> * See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
> >>> * limitations under the License. */
> >>>
> >>> 2. The Apache License block will be followed by a legacy comment (Only in
> files where the WorldWide Conferencing notice currently exists, except any files
> where user dpp has not made any contribution):
> >>> /* * Portions Copyright 2009 WorldWide Conferencing, LLC */
> >>>
> >>> 3. A NOTICE file with the following text will be added:
> >>> Apache Foo Incubating Code Copyright 2010 The Apache Software Foundation.
> >>> This product includes software developed at The Apache Software Foundation
> (http://www.apache.org/).
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 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
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >>
> >>
Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
Posted by Anne Kathrine Petterøe <yo...@gmail.com>.
Not my day for multi-tasking apparently, sorry...
"Apache ESME" of course.
+1
On 19 Jan, 2010, at 12:25 , Richard Hirsch wrote:
> The NOTICE should say "Apache ESME" instead of "Apache Foo"
>
> +1
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 12:17 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> <bd...@apache.org> wrote:
>> (ccing both lists now..)
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Anne Kathrine Petterøe
>> <yo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> PPMC and IPMC, please re-vote on the following regarding copyright issue ESME-47.
>>
>> +1 on what's suggested below (IPMC binding)
>> -Bertrand
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 1. The Apache license block will be added at the beginning of each source file:
>>> /* Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more
>>> * contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file distributed with
>>> * this work for additional information regarding copyright ownership.
>>> * The ASF licenses this file to You under the Apache License, Version 2.0
>>> * (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with
>>> * the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at *
>>> * http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 *
>>> * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
>>> * distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
>>> * WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
>>> * See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
>>> * limitations under the License. */
>>>
>>> 2. The Apache License block will be followed by a legacy comment (Only in files where the WorldWide Conferencing notice currently exists, except any files where user dpp has not made any contribution):
>>> /* * Portions Copyright 2009 WorldWide Conferencing, LLC */
>>>
>>> 3. A NOTICE file with the following text will be added:
>>> Apache Foo Incubating Code Copyright 2010 The Apache Software Foundation.
>>> This product includes software developed at The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
Posted by Anne Kathrine Petterøe <yo...@gmail.com>.
Not my day for multi-tasking apparently, sorry...
"Apache ESME" of course.
+1
On 19 Jan, 2010, at 12:25 , Richard Hirsch wrote:
> The NOTICE should say "Apache ESME" instead of "Apache Foo"
>
> +1
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 12:17 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> <bd...@apache.org> wrote:
>> (ccing both lists now..)
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Anne Kathrine Petterøe
>> <yo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> PPMC and IPMC, please re-vote on the following regarding copyright issue ESME-47.
>>
>> +1 on what's suggested below (IPMC binding)
>> -Bertrand
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 1. The Apache license block will be added at the beginning of each source file:
>>> /* Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more
>>> * contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file distributed with
>>> * this work for additional information regarding copyright ownership.
>>> * The ASF licenses this file to You under the Apache License, Version 2.0
>>> * (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with
>>> * the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at *
>>> * http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 *
>>> * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
>>> * distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
>>> * WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
>>> * See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
>>> * limitations under the License. */
>>>
>>> 2. The Apache License block will be followed by a legacy comment (Only in files where the WorldWide Conferencing notice currently exists, except any files where user dpp has not made any contribution):
>>> /* * Portions Copyright 2009 WorldWide Conferencing, LLC */
>>>
>>> 3. A NOTICE file with the following text will be added:
>>> Apache Foo Incubating Code Copyright 2010 The Apache Software Foundation.
>>> This product includes software developed at The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
Posted by Richard Hirsch <hi...@gmail.com>.
The NOTICE should say "Apache ESME" instead of "Apache Foo"
+1
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 12:17 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
<bd...@apache.org> wrote:
> (ccing both lists now..)
>
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Anne Kathrine Petterøe
> <yo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> PPMC and IPMC, please re-vote on the following regarding copyright issue ESME-47.
>
> +1 on what's suggested below (IPMC binding)
> -Bertrand
>
>
>>
>> 1. The Apache license block will be added at the beginning of each source file:
>> /* Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more
>> * contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file distributed with
>> * this work for additional information regarding copyright ownership.
>> * The ASF licenses this file to You under the Apache License, Version 2.0
>> * (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with
>> * the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at *
>> * http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 *
>> * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
>> * distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
>> * WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
>> * See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
>> * limitations under the License. */
>>
>> 2. The Apache License block will be followed by a legacy comment (Only in files where the WorldWide Conferencing notice currently exists, except any files where user dpp has not made any contribution):
>> /* * Portions Copyright 2009 WorldWide Conferencing, LLC */
>>
>> 3. A NOTICE file with the following text will be added:
>> Apache Foo Incubating Code Copyright 2010 The Apache Software Foundation.
>> This product includes software developed at The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
+1
Craig
On Jan 19, 2010, at 10:19 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>
> This issue was discussed extensively on legal-discuss, this proposal
> matches my understanding of the consensus opinion reached there.
>
> Here's my +1 (IPMC binding)
>
> --kevan
>
> On Jan 19, 2010, at 6:17 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>
>> (ccing both lists now..)
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Anne Kathrine Petterøe
>> <yo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> PPMC and IPMC, please re-vote on the following regarding copyright
>>> issue ESME-47.
>>
>> +1 on what's suggested below (IPMC binding)
>> -Bertrand
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 1. The Apache license block will be added at the beginning of each
>>> source file:
>>> /* Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or
>>> more
>>> * contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file distributed
>>> with
>>> * this work for additional information regarding copyright
>>> ownership.
>>> * The ASF licenses this file to You under the Apache License,
>>> Version 2.0
>>> * (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance
>>> with
>>> * the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at *
>>> * http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 *
>>> * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing,
>>> software
>>> * distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
>>> * WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or
>>> implied.
>>> * See the License for the specific language governing permissions
>>> and
>>> * limitations under the License. */
>>>
>>> 2. The Apache License block will be followed by a legacy comment
>>> (Only in files where the WorldWide Conferencing notice currently
>>> exists, except any files where user dpp has not made any
>>> contribution):
>>> /* * Portions Copyright 2009 WorldWide Conferencing, LLC */
>>>
>>> 3. A NOTICE file with the following text will be added:
>>> Apache Foo Incubating Code Copyright 2010 The Apache Software
>>> Foundation.
>>> This product includes software developed at The Apache Software
>>> Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>
Craig L Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
+1
Craig
On Jan 19, 2010, at 10:19 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>
> This issue was discussed extensively on legal-discuss, this proposal
> matches my understanding of the consensus opinion reached there.
>
> Here's my +1 (IPMC binding)
>
> --kevan
>
> On Jan 19, 2010, at 6:17 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>
>> (ccing both lists now..)
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Anne Kathrine Petterøe
>> <yo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> PPMC and IPMC, please re-vote on the following regarding copyright
>>> issue ESME-47.
>>
>> +1 on what's suggested below (IPMC binding)
>> -Bertrand
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 1. The Apache license block will be added at the beginning of each
>>> source file:
>>> /* Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or
>>> more
>>> * contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file distributed
>>> with
>>> * this work for additional information regarding copyright
>>> ownership.
>>> * The ASF licenses this file to You under the Apache License,
>>> Version 2.0
>>> * (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance
>>> with
>>> * the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at *
>>> * http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 *
>>> * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing,
>>> software
>>> * distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
>>> * WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or
>>> implied.
>>> * See the License for the specific language governing permissions
>>> and
>>> * limitations under the License. */
>>>
>>> 2. The Apache License block will be followed by a legacy comment
>>> (Only in files where the WorldWide Conferencing notice currently
>>> exists, except any files where user dpp has not made any
>>> contribution):
>>> /* * Portions Copyright 2009 WorldWide Conferencing, LLC */
>>>
>>> 3. A NOTICE file with the following text will be added:
>>> Apache Foo Incubating Code Copyright 2010 The Apache Software
>>> Foundation.
>>> This product includes software developed at The Apache Software
>>> Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>
Craig L Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
This issue was discussed extensively on legal-discuss, this proposal matches my understanding of the consensus opinion reached there.
Here's my +1 (IPMC binding)
--kevan
On Jan 19, 2010, at 6:17 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> (ccing both lists now..)
>
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Anne Kathrine Petterøe
> <yo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> PPMC and IPMC, please re-vote on the following regarding copyright issue ESME-47.
>
> +1 on what's suggested below (IPMC binding)
> -Bertrand
>
>
>>
>> 1. The Apache license block will be added at the beginning of each source file:
>> /* Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more
>> * contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file distributed with
>> * this work for additional information regarding copyright ownership.
>> * The ASF licenses this file to You under the Apache License, Version 2.0
>> * (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with
>> * the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at *
>> * http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 *
>> * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
>> * distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
>> * WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
>> * See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
>> * limitations under the License. */
>>
>> 2. The Apache License block will be followed by a legacy comment (Only in files where the WorldWide Conferencing notice currently exists, except any files where user dpp has not made any contribution):
>> /* * Portions Copyright 2009 WorldWide Conferencing, LLC */
>>
>> 3. A NOTICE file with the following text will be added:
>> Apache Foo Incubating Code Copyright 2010 The Apache Software Foundation.
>> This product includes software developed at The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
Posted by Mrinal Wadhwa <mr...@gmail.com>.
+1
Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
Posted by Vassil Dichev <vd...@apache.org>.
+1
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 10:06 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net> wrote:
> +1
>
> Daniel Kulp wrote:
>>
>> +1
>>
>> Let's get this finalized and move on.
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>
>> On Tue January 19 2010 6:17:16 am Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>>>
>>> (ccing both lists now..)
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Anne Kathrine Petterøe
>>>
>>> <yo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> PPMC and IPMC, please re-vote on the following regarding copyright issue
>>>> ESME-47.
>>>
>>> +1 on what's suggested below (IPMC binding)
>>> -Bertrand
>>>
>>>> 1. The Apache license block will be added at the beginning of each
>>>> source
>>>> file: /* Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or
>>>> more * contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file distributed
>>>> with * this work for additional information regarding copyright
>>>> ownership. * The ASF licenses this file to You under the Apache License,
>>>> Version 2.0 * (the "License"); you may not use this file except in
>>>> compliance with * the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at *
>>>> * http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 *
>>>> * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
>>>> * distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
>>>> * WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or
>>>> implied. * See the License for the specific language governing
>>>> permissions and * limitations under the License. */
>>>>
>>>> 2. The Apache License block will be followed by a legacy comment (Only
>>>> in
>>>> files where the WorldWide Conferencing notice currently exists, except
>>>> any files where user dpp has not made any contribution): /* * Portions
>>>> Copyright 2009 WorldWide Conferencing, LLC */
>>>>
>>>> 3. A NOTICE file with the following text will be added:
>>>> Apache Foo Incubating Code Copyright 2010 The Apache Software
>>>> Foundation.
>>>> This product includes software developed at The Apache Software
>>>> Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> For details, please see this legal-discuss mailing list thread:
>>>>
>>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201001.mbox/%3
>>>> cf767f0601001110028n54d85d03xaf703119fa08df6e@mail.gmail.com%3e
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>>
>>
>
> --
> Jean-Baptiste Onofré (Nanthrax)
> BuildProcess/AutoDeploy Project Leader
> http://buildprocess.sourceforge.net
> jb@nanthrax.net
> PGP : 17D4F086
>
Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
Posted by Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>.
+1
Daniel Kulp wrote:
> +1
>
> Let's get this finalized and move on.
>
> Dan
>
>
> On Tue January 19 2010 6:17:16 am Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>> (ccing both lists now..)
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Anne Kathrine Petterøe
>>
>> <yo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> PPMC and IPMC, please re-vote on the following regarding copyright issue
>>> ESME-47.
>> +1 on what's suggested below (IPMC binding)
>> -Bertrand
>>
>>> 1. The Apache license block will be added at the beginning of each source
>>> file: /* Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or
>>> more * contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file distributed
>>> with * this work for additional information regarding copyright
>>> ownership. * The ASF licenses this file to You under the Apache License,
>>> Version 2.0 * (the "License"); you may not use this file except in
>>> compliance with * the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at *
>>> * http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 *
>>> * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
>>> * distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
>>> * WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or
>>> implied. * See the License for the specific language governing
>>> permissions and * limitations under the License. */
>>>
>>> 2. The Apache License block will be followed by a legacy comment (Only in
>>> files where the WorldWide Conferencing notice currently exists, except
>>> any files where user dpp has not made any contribution): /* * Portions
>>> Copyright 2009 WorldWide Conferencing, LLC */
>>>
>>> 3. A NOTICE file with the following text will be added:
>>> Apache Foo Incubating Code Copyright 2010 The Apache Software Foundation.
>>> This product includes software developed at The Apache Software
>>> Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
>>>
>>>
>>> For details, please see this legal-discuss mailing list thread:
>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201001.mbox/%3
>>> cf767f0601001110028n54d85d03xaf703119fa08df6e@mail.gmail.com%3e
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>
--
Jean-Baptiste Onofré (Nanthrax)
BuildProcess/AutoDeploy Project Leader
http://buildprocess.sourceforge.net
jb@nanthrax.net
PGP : 17D4F086
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
Posted by Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>.
+1
Daniel Kulp wrote:
> +1
>
> Let's get this finalized and move on.
>
> Dan
>
>
> On Tue January 19 2010 6:17:16 am Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>> (ccing both lists now..)
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Anne Kathrine Petterøe
>>
>> <yo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> PPMC and IPMC, please re-vote on the following regarding copyright issue
>>> ESME-47.
>> +1 on what's suggested below (IPMC binding)
>> -Bertrand
>>
>>> 1. The Apache license block will be added at the beginning of each source
>>> file: /* Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or
>>> more * contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file distributed
>>> with * this work for additional information regarding copyright
>>> ownership. * The ASF licenses this file to You under the Apache License,
>>> Version 2.0 * (the "License"); you may not use this file except in
>>> compliance with * the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at *
>>> * http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 *
>>> * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
>>> * distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
>>> * WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or
>>> implied. * See the License for the specific language governing
>>> permissions and * limitations under the License. */
>>>
>>> 2. The Apache License block will be followed by a legacy comment (Only in
>>> files where the WorldWide Conferencing notice currently exists, except
>>> any files where user dpp has not made any contribution): /* * Portions
>>> Copyright 2009 WorldWide Conferencing, LLC */
>>>
>>> 3. A NOTICE file with the following text will be added:
>>> Apache Foo Incubating Code Copyright 2010 The Apache Software Foundation.
>>> This product includes software developed at The Apache Software
>>> Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
>>>
>>>
>>> For details, please see this legal-discuss mailing list thread:
>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201001.mbox/%3
>>> cf767f0601001110028n54d85d03xaf703119fa08df6e@mail.gmail.com%3e
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>
--
Jean-Baptiste Onofré (Nanthrax)
BuildProcess/AutoDeploy Project Leader
http://buildprocess.sourceforge.net
jb@nanthrax.net
PGP : 17D4F086
Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
Posted by Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>.
+1
Let's get this finalized and move on.
Dan
On Tue January 19 2010 6:17:16 am Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> (ccing both lists now..)
>
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Anne Kathrine Petterøe
>
> <yo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > PPMC and IPMC, please re-vote on the following regarding copyright issue
> > ESME-47.
>
> +1 on what's suggested below (IPMC binding)
> -Bertrand
>
> > 1. The Apache license block will be added at the beginning of each source
> > file: /* Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or
> > more * contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file distributed
> > with * this work for additional information regarding copyright
> > ownership. * The ASF licenses this file to You under the Apache License,
> > Version 2.0 * (the "License"); you may not use this file except in
> > compliance with * the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at *
> > * http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 *
> > * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
> > * distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
> > * WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or
> > implied. * See the License for the specific language governing
> > permissions and * limitations under the License. */
> >
> > 2. The Apache License block will be followed by a legacy comment (Only in
> > files where the WorldWide Conferencing notice currently exists, except
> > any files where user dpp has not made any contribution): /* * Portions
> > Copyright 2009 WorldWide Conferencing, LLC */
> >
> > 3. A NOTICE file with the following text will be added:
> > Apache Foo Incubating Code Copyright 2010 The Apache Software Foundation.
> > This product includes software developed at The Apache Software
> > Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
> >
> >
> > For details, please see this legal-discuss mailing list thread:
> > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201001.mbox/%3
> >cf767f0601001110028n54d85d03xaf703119fa08df6e@mail.gmail.com%3e
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
--
Daniel Kulp
dkulp@apache.org
http://www.dankulp.com/blog
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
Posted by Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>.
+1
Let's get this finalized and move on.
Dan
On Tue January 19 2010 6:17:16 am Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> (ccing both lists now..)
>
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Anne Kathrine Petterøe
>
> <yo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > PPMC and IPMC, please re-vote on the following regarding copyright issue
> > ESME-47.
>
> +1 on what's suggested below (IPMC binding)
> -Bertrand
>
> > 1. The Apache license block will be added at the beginning of each source
> > file: /* Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or
> > more * contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file distributed
> > with * this work for additional information regarding copyright
> > ownership. * The ASF licenses this file to You under the Apache License,
> > Version 2.0 * (the "License"); you may not use this file except in
> > compliance with * the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at *
> > * http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 *
> > * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
> > * distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
> > * WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or
> > implied. * See the License for the specific language governing
> > permissions and * limitations under the License. */
> >
> > 2. The Apache License block will be followed by a legacy comment (Only in
> > files where the WorldWide Conferencing notice currently exists, except
> > any files where user dpp has not made any contribution): /* * Portions
> > Copyright 2009 WorldWide Conferencing, LLC */
> >
> > 3. A NOTICE file with the following text will be added:
> > Apache Foo Incubating Code Copyright 2010 The Apache Software Foundation.
> > This product includes software developed at The Apache Software
> > Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
> >
> >
> > For details, please see this legal-discuss mailing list thread:
> > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201001.mbox/%3
> >cf767f0601001110028n54d85d03xaf703119fa08df6e@mail.gmail.com%3e
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
--
Daniel Kulp
dkulp@apache.org
http://www.dankulp.com/blog
Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
This issue was discussed extensively on legal-discuss, this proposal matches my understanding of the consensus opinion reached there.
Here's my +1 (IPMC binding)
--kevan
On Jan 19, 2010, at 6:17 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> (ccing both lists now..)
>
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Anne Kathrine Petterøe
> <yo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> PPMC and IPMC, please re-vote on the following regarding copyright issue ESME-47.
>
> +1 on what's suggested below (IPMC binding)
> -Bertrand
>
>
>>
>> 1. The Apache license block will be added at the beginning of each source file:
>> /* Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more
>> * contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file distributed with
>> * this work for additional information regarding copyright ownership.
>> * The ASF licenses this file to You under the Apache License, Version 2.0
>> * (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with
>> * the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at *
>> * http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 *
>> * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
>> * distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
>> * WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
>> * See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
>> * limitations under the License. */
>>
>> 2. The Apache License block will be followed by a legacy comment (Only in files where the WorldWide Conferencing notice currently exists, except any files where user dpp has not made any contribution):
>> /* * Portions Copyright 2009 WorldWide Conferencing, LLC */
>>
>> 3. A NOTICE file with the following text will be added:
>> Apache Foo Incubating Code Copyright 2010 The Apache Software Foundation.
>> This product includes software developed at The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
Posted by Anne Kathrine Petterøe <yo...@gmail.com>.
Think I forgot to vote myself +1
/Anne Kathrine
Sent from my iPhone
On 19. jan. 2010, at 12.17, Bertrand Delacretaz
<bd...@apache.org> wrote:
> (ccing both lists now..)
>
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Anne Kathrine Petterøe
> <yo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> PPMC and IPMC, please re-vote on the following regarding copyright
>> issue ESME-47.
>
> +1 on what's suggested below (IPMC binding)
> -Bertrand
>
>
>>
>> 1. The Apache license block will be added at the beginning of each
>> source file:
>> /* Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more
>> * contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file distributed
>> with
>> * this work for additional information regarding copyright
>> ownership.
>> * The ASF licenses this file to You under the Apache License,
>> Version 2.0
>> * (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance
>> with
>> * the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at *
>> * http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 *
>> * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing,
>> software
>> * distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
>> * WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or
>> implied.
>> * See the License for the specific language governing permissions
>> and
>> * limitations under the License. */
>>
>> 2. The Apache License block will be followed by a legacy comment
>> (Only in files where the WorldWide Conferencing notice currently
>> exists, except any files where user dpp has not made any
>> contribution):
>> /* * Portions Copyright 2009 WorldWide Conferencing, LLC */
>>
>> 3. A NOTICE file with the following text will be added:
>> Apache Foo Incubating Code Copyright 2010 The Apache Software
>> Foundation.
>> This product includes software developed at The Apache Software
>> Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
>>
>>
>> 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] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
(ccing both lists now..)
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Anne Kathrine Petterøe
<yo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> PPMC and IPMC, please re-vote on the following regarding copyright issue ESME-47.
+1 on what's suggested below (IPMC binding)
-Bertrand
>
> 1. The Apache license block will be added at the beginning of each source file:
> /* Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more
> * contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file distributed with
> * this work for additional information regarding copyright ownership.
> * The ASF licenses this file to You under the Apache License, Version 2.0
> * (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with
> * the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at *
> * http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 *
> * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
> * distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
> * WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
> * See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
> * limitations under the License. */
>
> 2. The Apache License block will be followed by a legacy comment (Only in files where the WorldWide Conferencing notice currently exists, except any files where user dpp has not made any contribution):
> /* * Portions Copyright 2009 WorldWide Conferencing, LLC */
>
> 3. A NOTICE file with the following text will be added:
> Apache Foo Incubating Code Copyright 2010 The Apache Software Foundation.
> This product includes software developed at The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
>
>
> 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
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Fwd: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
+1 from me
-- dims
On 01/19/2010 06:15 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> Forwarding to Incubator PMC, your votes are welcome (and sorry about
> re-voting...we at ESME changed our minds slightly)
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Anne Kathrine Petterøe <yo...@gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 12:10 PM
> Subject: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
> To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
>
>
> PPMC and IPMC, please re-vote on the following regarding copyright
> issue ESME-47.
>
> 1. The Apache license block will be added at the beginning of each source file:
> /* Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more
> * contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file distributed with
> * this work for additional information regarding copyright ownership.
> * The ASF licenses this file to You under the Apache License, Version 2.0
> * (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with
> * the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at *
> * http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 *
> * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
> * distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
> * WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
> * See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
> * limitations under the License. */
>
> 2. The Apache License block will be followed by a legacy comment (Only
> in files where the WorldWide Conferencing notice currently exists,
> except any files where user dpp has not made any contribution):
> /* * Portions Copyright 2009 WorldWide Conferencing, LLC */
>
> 3. A NOTICE file with the following text will be added:
> Apache Foo Incubating Code Copyright 2010 The Apache Software Foundation.
> This product includes software developed at The Apache Software
> Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
>
>
> 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
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
Fwd: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
Forwarding to Incubator PMC, your votes are welcome (and sorry about
re-voting...we at ESME changed our minds slightly)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Anne Kathrine Petterøe <yo...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 12:10 PM
Subject: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
PPMC and IPMC, please re-vote on the following regarding copyright
issue ESME-47.
1. The Apache license block will be added at the beginning of each source file:
/* Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more
* contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file distributed with
* this work for additional information regarding copyright ownership.
* The ASF licenses this file to You under the Apache License, Version 2.0
* (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with
* the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at *
* http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 *
* Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
* distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
* WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
* See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
* limitations under the License. */
2. The Apache License block will be followed by a legacy comment (Only
in files where the WorldWide Conferencing notice currently exists,
except any files where user dpp has not made any contribution):
/* * Portions Copyright 2009 WorldWide Conferencing, LLC */
3. A NOTICE file with the following text will be added:
Apache Foo Incubating Code Copyright 2010 The Apache Software Foundation.
This product includes software developed at The Apache Software
Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
(ccing both lists now..)
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Anne Kathrine Petterøe
<yo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> PPMC and IPMC, please re-vote on the following regarding copyright issue ESME-47.
+1 on what's suggested below (IPMC binding)
-Bertrand
>
> 1. The Apache license block will be added at the beginning of each source file:
> /* Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more
> * contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file distributed with
> * this work for additional information regarding copyright ownership.
> * The ASF licenses this file to You under the Apache License, Version 2.0
> * (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with
> * the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at *
> * http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 *
> * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
> * distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
> * WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
> * See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
> * limitations under the License. */
>
> 2. The Apache License block will be followed by a legacy comment (Only in files where the WorldWide Conferencing notice currently exists, except any files where user dpp has not made any contribution):
> /* * Portions Copyright 2009 WorldWide Conferencing, LLC */
>
> 3. A NOTICE file with the following text will be added:
> Apache Foo Incubating Code Copyright 2010 The Apache Software Foundation.
> This product includes software developed at The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
>
>
> 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
>
>