I have gotten the information that convince me that those images are really the property of Thoof and therefore doesn't have a problem. My +1 stands :)
Frank On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 12:38 AM, Frank Bille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 12:23 AM, Martijn Dashorst > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On 5/19/08, Frank Bille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> 1) I personally only know how to write code; not how to create cute >>> kitten images. Therefore I don't question that Thoof could really have >>> created the source code at hand. And the source code is not *so* >>> complex. But in my world it takes more effort to create a kitten >>> image, than it does to create a kitten captcha component. Ideally it >>> would be nice if every file in the batch was followed by a >>> oneliner/tag, saying "created in-house", "3. party ASL", etc. >> >> In an ideal world we could do anything with any IP. But the process of >> the Software Grant and the IP Clearance have been vetted by the Legal >> department of the ASF. The owner of Thoof has put his signature under >> the Software Grant. This is as far as the ASF is concerned enough to >> ensure due dilligence. Be it either source code or other IP >> transferred under the grant. > > Ok > >>> 2) But if we should be practical, then for my sake I trust the source >>> code, but if we could just get a "yes, images are created in-house" or >>> something from Thoof, then I would be satisfied. I know they have >>> signed of the zip file, but if I look at the ip-clearance page[0], I >>> see no dates on the "Check items" task. Does that mean that we don't >>> really know what the license are for those images? >> >> Huh? What are you talking about? This check is for stuff that is not >> under the ASL. Thoof has submitted the whole IP for distribution under >> the Apache License, as per Software Grant. There is nothing to be >> found that is not part of this grant. >> >> None of the source files have the appropriate License header, nor does >> the zip have a License file. And yet you are willing to accept the >> source code to be distributable under the ASL, even though they are >> clearly lacking the License headers and License.txt > > Ok, it's about trust and I trust that the source code is theirs. > > >>> 3) I'm +1 for including the components, with or without the images >>> depending on what we find out with those. >> >> There is nothing to find out. They fall under the software grant. >> Either you mistrust the grant (I would like to know what the evidence >> is why you think the images are not owned by thoof), and should vote >> -1, or you trust the grant, and you cast your vote based on whether or >> not you find it a worthy addition (could still be -1). > > Again it's all about trust. And I trust that the java (and html) > source code is (originally) owned by Thoof. I'm just slightly worried > about the images. I can try to contact them myself and ask about those > images. I don't have any evidence that they are problematic, but then > again I don't have any evidence they are not. So just to summarize: > > I like the component as idea (no doubt about that) > I trust the java source code. > I trust that Thoof has done a good job making sure that they own the > IP for it all > I would like to find out if that good job also covers the images. I > can't mistrust the grant unless I have evidence. So I'm going to see > if I can get information about those images from Thoof. I not I would > still be +1 for inclusion. We can remove them if we find out there are > problems. > > Frank >
