On Tue, 2006-04-04 at 09:16 -0700, Henri Yandell wrote: > On 4/2/06, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 4/2/06, Sandy McArthur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > For me that falls apart in two places: > > > 1. authorship != ownership, this is made clear by the file's header. > > > 2. subversion contains enough information to target critical > > > contributors. In my mind that is like worrying about a second story > > > window that may be unlocked when your front door is off the hinges. > > > > > > Subversion does indeed contain plenty of information. However, lawyers don't > > understand source control systems, but they do understand plain text. A > > technical perspective isn't what's important here; what lawyers understand, > > and what is supported by legal precedent, is. That's where the board is > > coming from, backed by legal advice. > > There's also a difference between push and pull, I believe. We are > publishing/distributing the author names in the javadoc/source - we > don't publish the subversion data.
AIUI copyright is not the key issue here and (so) not ownership or authorship. the ASF tries to ensure that there is a public record of the entire process so that this should be clear and transparent. so, ownership and authorship should not be in doubt. however, the intent may be. use of the author tag was thought to increase the chance of a court ruling that when the source was created, the contributor intended to work for themselves rather than on the ASF's behalf. not sure how strong this argument would be but (since it was only a recommendation) quite possibly not very. but if you're interested in the legal side of this issue, it might be worth raising this on legal discuss when things are a little quieter than now... - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
