On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 10:31 PM, Joe Schaefer <[email protected]> wrote: > ----- Original Message ---- > >> From: Gianugo Rabellino <[email protected]> >> To: [email protected] >> Sent: Tue, January 12, 2010 4:20:14 PM >> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Dealing with copyright issue (See ESME-47) >> >> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 4:23 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote: >> > I'm hoping another lengthy diatribe from you won't be >> > necessary. While I don't blame you for David's disappearance, >> > the reason we bother to document policy is so people don't >> > need to get creative with their legal understanding of how the ASF works. >> > In the future should this issue ever present itself to you, >> > I hope you will do the proper thing and point the errant person >> > at the relevant ASF policy >> >> That would be the same policy that says we _must_ remove copyright >> notices from source files, right? > > Technically it says the copyright holder must do that, not the ASF.
Oh, please - let's not go there. The fact that the policy misses a (4) remove the file in question still doesn't mean the "must" is irrelevant. That would be playing with words. >> The same policy that is now being >> discarded in light of a compromise that makes very little sense and >> sets a dangerous precedent? > > It is neither a compromise nor a precedent. It is a decision > in line with ASF policy and made by the project (and apparently > supported by members of the IPMC). I can only respect your opinion, and respectfully disagree. I hope you will do the same and accept that I'm worried we are opening a backdoor where the next David Pollack might argue that he shouldn't remove copyright notices as there is evidence of a policy being ignored in the past. -- Gianugo Rabellino M: +44 779 5364 932 / +39 389 44 26 846 Sourcesense - making sense of Open Source: http://www.sourcesense.com
