Robert, can you please clarify your concerns: 1. You have stated that the suggested copyright statement is factually incorrect. I do not see how that is that case, as portions of the files *are* copyright as described.
2. You are stating that having the notice in the file is dangerous. How? Given the extensive prior discussion of this issue and the appearance of a consensus on both this list and the legal-discuss list, I think you owe this project a more thorough explanation along with your veto. Thanks, Ethan On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 5:15 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
