On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 10:08 PM, Joe Schaefer <[email protected]> wrote: > ----- Original Message ---- > >> From: Robert Burrell Donkin <[email protected]> >> To: [email protected] >> Sent: Wed, January 20, 2010 5:03:12 PM >> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47) >> >> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 9:46 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote: >> > ----- Original Message ---- >> > >> >> From: Robert Burrell Donkin >> >> To: [email protected] >> >> Sent: Wed, January 20, 2010 4:35:25 PM >> >> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47) >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 8:47 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote: >> >> > ----- Original Message ---- >> >> > >> >> >> From: Robert Burrell Donkin >> >> >> To: [email protected] >> >> >> Sent: Wed, January 20, 2010 3:00:33 PM >> >> >> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47) >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 7:59 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> > 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. >> >> >> >> >> >> BTW Eben Moglen has an excellent article on how to do this right >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > Here you've gone completely batshit, as I'm quite certain Eben Moglen >> >> > has >> >> > never written about this precise issue. >> >> >> >> yes, i'm also sure that Eben Moglen has never written on the matter of >> >> whether Esme is right in using that particular phrase >> >> >> >> he has written on the subject of the right way to include a copyright >> >> notice in a derivative work under a different collective copyright and >> >> license as illustrated by a bsd->gpl example. (when i have time i'll >> >> dig out the link but you'll find it if you google.) >> > >> > As I'm fairly certain you learned about that article's existence from me >> > regarding Thrift lacking ICLAs, I won't bother digging it up and rereading >> > it because I'm 100% certain it has nothing to do with the situation at >> > hand. >> > >> > This is not about derivative works, third party licensing, or collective >> > copyright. It's about work contributed to Apache under an ICLA littered >> > with onerous copyright notices in the source. The project would very much >> > like to dispense with this issue by someone who is not the copyright holder >> > (since *that* committer resigned over this issue), moving the notices to a >> single >> > line in the NOTICE file. They are currently blocked from doing that >> > because >> > the legal team's policy doesn't cover that act. Fix that and everyone goes >> > away happy. >> > >> > What that will entail is some attorney presenting to the legal team an >> > assessment of the legal risks the org assumes by writing that into the >> > policy. >> > Once it has been explained, the legal team can vote to accept the risk >> > and adopt the policy. It will take lots of time and energy, and since you >> > are so concerned about the wrong thing taking place in the interim, perhaps >> > you can be the one to champion this issue for the project while they wait >> > for you to carry out what the rest of the legal team seems relatively >> > unconcerned about. >> >> the copyright notices in the file are factually incorrect. this should >> be addressed. > > How so? Nobody's touched them except for the committer who put them there. > >> Eben Moglen's article gives advice on the right way to >> deal with this. the rest is politics and i don't have the cycles for >> that ATM. > > Not by a long shot, because his article deals with the case of mixed open > source > licenses.
he deals with the problem of factually accurate statements about copyright as part of his treatment of that subject > The agreement here is the CLA, not the Apache License or some other > open source license. my point has nothing to do with that: my point is that the statement is not correct and moreover is dangerous >> the rest is politics and i don't have the cycles for that ATM. > > Well since I've answered your issues, I'd like to ask that you retract your > veto., my veto is valid since you missed entirely my point and have failed to address it - robert
