----- Original Message ----
> From: Robert Burrell Donkin <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]
> Sent: Wed, January 20, 2010 2:59:26 PM
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
>
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 7:11 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 1:59 AM, Ralph Goers
> wrote:
> >> ...I suggest you review the thread that was provided and then see if you
> >> want
> to reconsider your veto....
> >
> > As this vote is not about a technical issue, I don't think there are
> > vetos - we should have explicitely specified that this is a majority
> > vote.
> >
> > Robert and Gianugo, did you mean to veto this with your -1s, or just
> > express your disagreement with the majority?
>
> i consider making claims about third party copyright ownership rather
> than a statement of fact is positively dangerous from a legal
> perspective
>
> so, it's a legal team veto until i have chance to review (my exam is
> tomorrow morning so i should be able to find some time in the
> afternoon)
>
> if anyone objects or feels that i am wrong then please raise on the
> legal lists. if sam ruby or a majority of the legal team folks feel
> that i'm wrong then i'm happy to be outvoted.
Robert:
Why don't you do everyone a favor, gather up the legal-team, and issue a ruling
saying ANY ASF COMMITTER can move these nagging copyright notices into the
NOTICE
file. When you do that, be sure to update the appropriate policy documents
these
folks are trying to comply with. The only reason this project is troubling
itself
to jump through so many hoops is because the legal team is too chicken shit to
tell these people what to do in this circumstance.
>
> - robert
