You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> on 2017/02/21 07:28:42 UTC
LEGAL-289
Hi!
it has been almost two weeks since the last actionable
comment on LEGAL-289. I'd like to find out what's the
current status. I also would like to either re-open it or
create a new one so we can resolve this matter in
a responsible manner.
Thanks,
Roman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: LEGAL-289
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 4:31 PM Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 12:51 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 12:59 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
> wrote:
> >> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 3:38 AM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>> I'll point out that the issue was closed with this comment
> >>>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-289?focusedCommentId=15858441&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-15858441
> >>> - however it was marked as won't fix, so..
> >>>
> >>> I added the comment about checking on the license status after it was
> >>> closed.
> >>
> >> Ah! That makes sense.
> >>
> >>> I have not received a response, however I also figured it would be
> >>> unlikely that I get a response.
> >>>
> >>> Reading through the license, I think we should start over on analysis,
> and
> >>> come up with something. I agree with the initial notes about BSD-ish,
> but
> >>> as mentioned its seemingly written in layman's terms so its not that
> easy to
> >>> confirm.
> >>
> >> What's the process for this? Do we need to wait for a new VP Legal to be
> >> appointed? From where I stand, Roy's comment (as usual) is the answer:
> >>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-289?focusedCommentId=15858365&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-15858365
> >>
> >> But at the same time I also respect Jim's opinion and others who chimed
> in.
> >> I also, obviously, have my own opinion (stated on a JIRA).
> >>
> >> Obviously some of this opinions are in conflict. How do we arrive at a
> >> resolution?
> >
> > What is in conflict?
> >
> > "Jim Jagielski added a comment - 08/Feb/17 19:34
> >
> > Whatever. Approve it. Move it to catA.
> > this is my last decision as VP Legal."
> >
> > Did you need him to repeat himself?
>
> No -- I'm really happy with this decision. Unless I hear otherwise in
> the next 72 hours
> I'll move it to CatA.
>
>
I have no qualms with the license.
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
Re: LEGAL-289
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 12:51 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 12:59 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 3:38 AM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> I'll point out that the issue was closed with this comment
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-289?focusedCommentId=15858441&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-15858441
>>> - however it was marked as won't fix, so..
>>>
>>> I added the comment about checking on the license status after it was
>>> closed.
>>
>> Ah! That makes sense.
>>
>>> I have not received a response, however I also figured it would be
>>> unlikely that I get a response.
>>>
>>> Reading through the license, I think we should start over on analysis, and
>>> come up with something. I agree with the initial notes about BSD-ish, but
>>> as mentioned its seemingly written in layman's terms so its not that easy to
>>> confirm.
>>
>> What's the process for this? Do we need to wait for a new VP Legal to be
>> appointed? From where I stand, Roy's comment (as usual) is the answer:
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-289?focusedCommentId=15858365&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-15858365
>>
>> But at the same time I also respect Jim's opinion and others who chimed in.
>> I also, obviously, have my own opinion (stated on a JIRA).
>>
>> Obviously some of this opinions are in conflict. How do we arrive at a
>> resolution?
>
> What is in conflict?
>
> "Jim Jagielski added a comment - 08/Feb/17 19:34
>
> Whatever. Approve it. Move it to catA.
> this is my last decision as VP Legal."
>
> Did you need him to repeat himself?
No -- I'm really happy with this decision. Unless I hear otherwise in
the next 72 hours
I'll move it to CatA.
Thanks,
Roman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: LEGAL-289
Posted by William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 12:59 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 3:38 AM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org> wrote:
>> I'll point out that the issue was closed with this comment
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-289?focusedCommentId=15858441&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-15858441
>> - however it was marked as won't fix, so..
>>
>> I added the comment about checking on the license status after it was
>> closed.
>
> Ah! That makes sense.
>
>> I have not received a response, however I also figured it would be
>> unlikely that I get a response.
>>
>> Reading through the license, I think we should start over on analysis, and
>> come up with something. I agree with the initial notes about BSD-ish, but
>> as mentioned its seemingly written in layman's terms so its not that easy to
>> confirm.
>
> What's the process for this? Do we need to wait for a new VP Legal to be
> appointed? From where I stand, Roy's comment (as usual) is the answer:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-289?focusedCommentId=15858365&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-15858365
>
> But at the same time I also respect Jim's opinion and others who chimed in.
> I also, obviously, have my own opinion (stated on a JIRA).
>
> Obviously some of this opinions are in conflict. How do we arrive at a
> resolution?
What is in conflict?
"Jim Jagielski added a comment - 08/Feb/17 19:34
Whatever. Approve it. Move it to catA.
this is my last decision as VP Legal."
Did you need him to repeat himself?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: LEGAL-289
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 3:38 AM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org> wrote:
> I'll point out that the issue was closed with this comment
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-289?focusedCommentId=15858441&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-15858441
> - however it was marked as won't fix, so..
>
> I added the comment about checking on the license status after it was
> closed.
Ah! That makes sense.
> I have not received a response, however I also figured it would be
> unlikely that I get a response.
>
> Reading through the license, I think we should start over on analysis, and
> come up with something. I agree with the initial notes about BSD-ish, but
> as mentioned its seemingly written in layman's terms so its not that easy to
> confirm.
What's the process for this? Do we need to wait for a new VP Legal to be
appointed? From where I stand, Roy's comment (as usual) is the answer:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-289?focusedCommentId=15858365&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-15858365
But at the same time I also respect Jim's opinion and others who chimed in.
I also, obviously, have my own opinion (stated on a JIRA).
Obviously some of this opinions are in conflict. How do we arrive at a
resolution?
Thanks,
Roman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: LEGAL-289
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
I'll point out that the issue was closed with this comment
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-289?focusedCommentId=15858441&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-15858441
-
however it was marked as won't fix, so..
I added the comment about checking on the license status after it was
closed. I have not received a response, however I also figured it would be
unlikely that I get a response.
Reading through the license, I think we should start over on analysis, and
come up with something. I agree with the initial notes about BSD-ish, but
as mentioned its seemingly written in layman's terms so its not that easy
to confirm.
my 0.005
John
On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 2:28 AM Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
wrote:
> Hi!
>
> it has been almost two weeks since the last actionable
> comment on LEGAL-289. I'd like to find out what's the
> current status. I also would like to either re-open it or
> create a new one so we can resolve this matter in
> a responsible manner.
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>