You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cocoon.apache.org by Steven Noels <st...@outerthought.org> on 2003/04/08 07:45:03 UTC

[PMC Vote] Copyright footer on Cocoon Wiki

Pier was right and I shouldn't have solved this pragmatically, so we 
need a vote on this:

until the Wiki moves to proper ASF grounds, it is questionable whether 
the Wiki should display the footer "(c) The Apache Software Foundation", 
since it ain't running on ASF equipment, or refers to the "Cocoon 
project" without asking permission as required by our license.

                         http://wiki.cocoondev.org/

I, system maintainer of that Wiki, ask therefore if the Cocoon PMC deems 
it appropriate if I use the phrase "(c) The Cocoon Community" on the 
Wiki pages, as a temporary measure until the Wiki is moved to ASF 
infrastructure, a process in which I plan to actively participate.

Your votes please:

   [  ]  wiki.cocoondev.org can refer to the Cocoon community in its
         copyright footer
   [  ]  no, it can't, and some other resolution must be sought

Cheers,

</Steven>
-- 
Steven Noels                            http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
Read my weblog at            http://blogs.cocoondev.org/stevenn/
stevenn at outerthought.org                stevenn at apache.org


Re: [PMC Vote] Copyright footer on Cocoon Wiki

Posted by Steven Noels <st...@outerthought.org>.
On 9/04/2003 19:46 Andrew Savory wrote:

> I've been thinking about this, and in the context of adding abuse
> protection to the wiki, too. If we require some simple registration
> procedure before using the wiki to help minimise abuse, perhaps the
> registration procedure could have a click-through license agreement? I'm
> not sure how legally binding that would be.

- if it's hosted on nagoya, it would be technically possible to 
click-through an agreement that states additions to the wiki become "(c) 
ASF" since the Wiki runs inside the *.apache.org URI space (nitpicking: 
I would like to see proof of this requirement/policy, just out of 
curiosity - I suspect some things in this respect to be underspecified, 
like the GPL policy)

- this would require oversight of the PMC to check no content gets added 
which would be illegal (patented stuff, Microsoft KB articles, yada 
yada) - I assume the diff mails can be seen as some way to provide this 
oversight, so we would be OK

- still, to be really correct, Wiki authors should then also be signing 
the committers agreement & fax it to Jim, which seems like one step too 
much - I'm not so sure whether this last step is a required and 
realistic requirement

Something more or less related: as much as the ASF license is my 
favourite open source license, some other people prefer other ones. How 
would they be able to add onto the Wiki? One of the ideas behind 
cocoondev.org is to serve as a platform for non-ASF, yet still OSS 
Cocoon-related projects (like a Cocoon block which would depend on GPL 
code).

</Steven>
-- 
Steven Noels                            http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
Read my weblog at            http://blogs.cocoondev.org/stevenn/
stevenn at outerthought.org                stevenn at apache.org


Re: [PMC Vote] Copyright footer on Cocoon Wiki

Posted by Andrew Savory <an...@luminas.co.uk>.
On Wed, 9 Apr 2003, Diana Shannon wrote:

> Still, wiki authors don't send in an ASF Contributor License, so I can't
> see that we can enforce much about copyright in this context.

I've been thinking about this, and in the context of adding abuse
protection to the wiki, too. If we require some simple registration
procedure before using the wiki to help minimise abuse, perhaps the
registration procedure could have a click-through license agreement? I'm
not sure how legally binding that would be.


Andrew.

-- 
Andrew Savory                                Email: andrew@luminas.co.uk
Managing Director                              Tel:  +44 (0)870 741 6658
Luminas Internet Applications                  Fax:  +44 (0)700 598 1135
This is not an official statement or order.    Web:    www.luminas.co.uk

Re: [PMC Vote] Copyright footer on Cocoon Wiki

Posted by Diana Shannon <sh...@apache.org>.
On Tuesday, April 8, 2003, at 05:08  PM, Berin Loritsch wrote:

>> Does anyone out there with more legal knowledge know if "Cocoon 
>> Community"
>> is good enough? If so, then I'm happy to change to +1.
>
> If it is a legal entity, Yes.  The ASF is a legal entity.  The FSF is a
> legal entity.
>
> They are both incorporated with By-laws and legally accounted for by the
> government.
>
> Otherwise, all material is copyright the original author.

I disagree with the interpretation expressed by last sentence, based on 
the word "Otherwise". If doc contributions follow guidelines set up in 
the ASF Contributor License, then authors reserve all right, title, and 
interest in their contributions -- whether donating to the ASF or not. 
(This is straight from the license.) The use of the term "otherwise" 
suggests that authors retain copyright only if they donate to a 
non-legal entity. IANAL, but I think this is incorrect.

Still, wiki authors don't send in an ASF Contributor License, so I can't 
see that we can enforce much about copyright in this context.

Diana


Re: [PMC Vote] Copyright footer on Cocoon Wiki

Posted by Berin Loritsch <bl...@apache.org>.
Andrew Savory wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Tue, 8 Apr 2003, Steven Noels wrote:
> 
> 
>>Personally, I think "(c) The Cocoon Community" with proper approval of
>>this PMC would do the job until we migrate to nagoya.
> 
> 
> Yes, but the problem is how you define "The Cocoon Community", since it is
> not an entity (either organisation or person).
> 
> If the copyright is there to protect us from having the material stolen,
> borrowed, or repackaged without our consent, then we need to make sure
> that the terms used actually do offer us that protection.
> 
> Does anyone out there with more legal knowledge know if "Cocoon Community"
> is good enough? If so, then I'm happy to change to +1.

If it is a legal entity, Yes.  The ASF is a legal entity.  The FSF is a
legal entity.

They are both incorporated with By-laws and legally accounted for by the
government.

Otherwise, all material is copyright the original author.

-- 
"You know the world is going crazy when the best
rapper is a white guy, the best golfer is a black guy,
The Swiss hold the America's Cup, France is
accusing the US of arrogance, and Germany doesn't want
to go to war. And the 3 most powerful men in America
are named 'Bush', 'Dick', and 'Colon' (sic)".

-----Chris Rock


Re: [PMC Vote] Copyright footer on Cocoon Wiki

Posted by Andrew Savory <an...@luminas.co.uk>.
Hi,

On Tue, 8 Apr 2003, Steven Noels wrote:

> Personally, I think "(c) The Cocoon Community" with proper approval of
> this PMC would do the job until we migrate to nagoya.

Yes, but the problem is how you define "The Cocoon Community", since it is
not an entity (either organisation or person).

If the copyright is there to protect us from having the material stolen,
borrowed, or repackaged without our consent, then we need to make sure
that the terms used actually do offer us that protection.

Does anyone out there with more legal knowledge know if "Cocoon Community"
is good enough? If so, then I'm happy to change to +1.

> Can we continue this vote? I would like to finish the process that
> Stefano started.

Sorry to put a spanner in the works :-( Just want to make sure the change
is actually valid!


Andrew.

-- 
Andrew Savory                                Email: andrew@luminas.co.uk
Managing Director                              Tel:  +44 (0)870 741 6658
Luminas Internet Applications                  Fax:  +44 (0)700 598 1135
This is not an official statement or order.    Web:    www.luminas.co.uk

Re: [PMC Vote] Copyright footer on Cocoon Wiki

Posted by Steven Noels <st...@outerthought.org>.
On 8/04/2003 10:13 Andrew Savory wrote:

> I suspect the best way to speedily resolve the issue is to either allow
> the use of (c) ASF (and I really can't see why this would be a problem,
> since after all every installed copy of Cocoon has that printed at the
> bottom whether it's on ASF machines or not) or to push ahead and move the
> content across to ASF hardware. Of course, if this is likely to take weeks
> or even months, then we should come up with an alternative.

I think "(c) ASF" is still flexing the rules more than referring to the 
"Cocoon Community" as the owner of the Wiki content.

We as a PMC are able to grant the right to use the Cocoon name, but we 
cannot change the rules stipulating only content managed and published 
from apache.org infrastructure can be "(c) ASF".

Then again, I'm pretty sure there is currently comparable oversight over 
the Cocoon Wiki content as over the nagoya ASF Wiki, because of the 
automated diff mails send to an ASF list. So we could say the 
information on the Wiki is reviewed after all by this community, and 
even though it isn't hosted on ASF equipment, effectively is part of 
this project -> hence "(c) ASF". Sigh.

Personally, I think "(c) The Cocoon Community" with proper approval of 
this PMC would do the job until we migrate to nagoya.

Can we continue this vote? I would like to finish the process that 
Stefano started.

</Steven>
-- 
Steven Noels                            http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
Read my weblog at            http://blogs.cocoondev.org/stevenn/
stevenn at outerthought.org                stevenn at apache.org


Re: [PMC Vote] Copyright footer on Cocoon Wiki

Posted by Andrew Savory <an...@luminas.co.uk>.
>    [  ]  wiki.cocoondev.org can refer to the Cocoon community in its
>          copyright footer
>    [+1]  no, it can't, and some other resolution must be sought

On Tue, 8 Apr 2003, David Crossley wrote:

> Because the wiki is in the process of being moved further
> under the ASF wing, i think that the existing copyright
> notice can remain while that happens. If the move does not
> eventuate then we need some other solution.
>
> We should not set up some separate entity that is copyright
> holder of anything. That might just create other issues.

<ianal>
I think David is right - I don't believe "the Cocoon Community" would
stand up to any serious copyright problem in a court of law - it's too
abstract a concept.
</ianal>

I suspect the best way to speedily resolve the issue is to either allow
the use of (c) ASF (and I really can't see why this would be a problem,
since after all every installed copy of Cocoon has that printed at the
bottom whether it's on ASF machines or not) or to push ahead and move the
content across to ASF hardware. Of course, if this is likely to take weeks
or even months, then we should come up with an alternative.


Andrew.

-- 
Andrew Savory                                Email: andrew@luminas.co.uk
Managing Director                              Tel:  +44 (0)870 741 6658
Luminas Internet Applications                  Fax:  +44 (0)700 598 1135
This is not an official statement or order.    Web:    www.luminas.co.uk

Re: [PMC Vote] Copyright footer on Cocoon Wiki

Posted by David Crossley <cr...@indexgeo.com.au>.
>    [  ]  wiki.cocoondev.org can refer to the Cocoon community in its
>          copyright footer
>    [+1]  no, it can't, and some other resolution must be sought

(That sounds a bit forceful and is not really what i want to say.)

Because the wiki is in the process of being moved further
under the ASF wing, i think that the existing copyright
notice can remain while that happens. If the move does not
eventuate then we need some other solution.

We should not set up some separate entity that is copyright
holder of anything. That might just create other issues.

--David


Re: [PMC Vote] Copyright footer on Cocoon Wiki

Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@codeconsult.ch>.
Le Mardi, 8 avr 2003, à 07:45 Europe/Zurich, Steven Noels a écrit :

> ...Your votes please:
>
>   [+1]  wiki.cocoondev.org can refer to the Cocoon community in its
>         copyright footer
>   [  ]  no, it can't, and some other resolution must be sought
>

-Bertrand