Thanks, Bertrand. I also found Bill's suggestion clear and after following the whole discussion it made most sense to me. I will start another vote.
/Anne On 19 Jan, 2010, at 11:46 , Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Anne Kathrine Petterøe > <[email protected]> wrote: >> ...Should we have another vote with the new text which was suggested on the >> legal-list after we started this vote?... > > I think so, if we want to be really clean we need another vote. We > should have waited a bit more. > >> On 16 Jan, 2010, at 16:42 , Ethan Jewett wrote: >> >>> I'm for the "Portions Copyright..." wording. What I have no idea about >>> is whether that is a substantial enough change to require another >>> vote. Mentors? > > IIUC, Bill Rowe's suggestion > (http://markmail.org/message/q6yweleer2voqvd3) is to > > a) Have the Apache license block at the beginning of each source file > (i.e. before any additional copyright notices) > > b) Where needed, follow that with the "Portions Copyright 2009 > WorldWide Conferencing, LLC" notice. That would be in files where the > WorldWide Conferencing notice currently exists, except any files where > user dpp has not made any contributions (don't know if there are any). > > c) Not add any mentions of this in the NOTICE file. > > The rationale for c), as I understand it, is that the NOTICE file must > contain a minimum as downstream redistributions are required to keep > it intact. With b), we're clean w.r.t. David Pollak's refusal to > remove those notices, so I agree with c). > > My suggestion would be to re-vote on a) b) c) above, including the > Incubator PMC right from the start of that vote. > > Re-voting might sound a bit silly, but the whole thing is anyway...my > angle is that we want to solve this issue very cleanly so as to be > able to completely forget about it as soon as possible. So leave no > stone unturned right now, and get on with *useful work*. > > -Bertrand
