Re: Request for Comment : Harmony Contribution Policy
Comments? (Like I need to ask for them... ) Re: Part VIII : Employment Limitations may need to think about the differences in employment law in different jurisdications. AIUI European employment law typically does not recognise the concept of trade secrets and strictly limits the rights of employers to material created by an employee in their own time using their materials. on the other hand, authorization of the work by the employer may led to loss of rights to material created by the employee in the employer's time. any agreements related to employment will be interpreted under employment law rather than contract law (which are quite different) so even a signed CCLA may offer little help to the ASF in the event of a dispute. so, may need an additional clause with different wording for those in similar jurisdictions. (but of course IANAL) - robert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request for Comment : Harmony Contribution Policy
On Mon, 1 Aug 2005, robert burrell donkin wrote: of trade secrets and strictly limits the rights of employers to material created by an employee in their own time using their materials. On paper - yes - but national law and case-law shows that as soon as that material is even remotely in the same line of work as gainfully employed to do; cases err. towards the employer. time. any agreements related to employment will be interpreted under employment law rather than contract law (which are quite different) so Agreed. even a signed CCLA may offer little help to the ASF in the event of a ^ dispute. so, may need an additional clause with different wording for those in similar jurisdictions. This I do not see - a CLA yes (esp. if the employer was not informed about it - which in most EU countries an employee effectively has to do). But a CCLA from the employer ? Because then the dispute is between the ASF and the Employer about the agreement set out in the CCLA. Dw - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request for Comment : Harmony Contribution Policy
On Aug 1, 2005, at 8:16 AM, robert burrell donkin wrote: Comments? (Like I need to ask for them... ) Re: Part VIII : Employment Limitations may need to think about the differences in employment law in different jurisdications. Yes - we've already encountered comments about that on the list. AIUI European employment law typically does not recognise the concept of trade secrets and strictly limits the rights of employers to material created by an employee in their own time using their materials. on the other hand, authorization of the work by the employer may led to loss of rights to material created by the employee in the employer's time. any agreements related to employment will be interpreted under employment law rather than contract law (which are quite different) so even a signed CCLA may offer little help to the ASF in the event of a dispute. so, may need an additional clause with different wording for those in similar jurisdictions. Ok - note that it is encouragement, rather than a requirement, but this is good - if there's something that works in European employment law that helps achieve our goal of reducing the possible claims on the Harmony codebase, we're all ears... :) geir (but of course IANAL) - robert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437 [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request for Comment : Harmony Contribution Policy
On 8/1/05, Dirk-Willem van Gulik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 1 Aug 2005, robert burrell donkin wrote: of trade secrets and strictly limits the rights of employers to material created by an employee in their own time using their materials. On paper - yes - but national law and case-law shows that as soon as that material is even remotely in the same line of work as gainfully employed to do; cases err. towards the employer. AIUI that is not the case with UK law (for copyright at least). anything your create in your own time which does not use your employers materials belongs to you. the only difficulties arise when the disputed material is very similar to material demonstrated to be owned by your employer (in which case, i agree that cases err towards the employer). time. any agreements related to employment will be interpreted under employment law rather than contract law (which are quite different) so Agreed. even a signed CCLA may offer little help to the ASF in the event of a ^ dispute. so, may need an additional clause with different wording for those in similar jurisdictions. This I do not see - a CLA yes (esp. if the employer was not informed about it - which in most EU countries an employee effectively has to do). But a CCLA from the employer ? Because then the dispute is between the ASF and the Employer about the agreement set out in the CCLA. i do agree that (if you can find a UK employer willing to sign it), having a CCLA decreases the chances of an employer successfully obtaining title. i worry that the CCLA is a contract framed under US law and which may not turn out to be enforcable in other jurisdictions. for example, AIUI it does not explicitly exclude actions under employment law to obtain title (claiming - for example - that the employee was not empowered to make certain contributions). in the UK, the matter of copyright (in a dispute) would be assigned by a court judgement. the case would be between employee and employer and the ASF would not be a party to the primary action. i'm unsure whether the ASF would be able to sue anyone in those circumstances. IANAL - robert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Harmony Podlling Quarterly Report
--On August 1, 2005 2:33:51 AM +0800 Niclas Hedhman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Isn't it possible that the ASF mailing lists and policies stay the way they are, and that each of the Harmony contributors provide a LGPL license separately for all code/patches provided (in advance or each post) for the GPL peeps to be able to use the material and output of such discussions ?? That won't work if the intention is for the code to enter a FSF code repository. The FSF demands copyright ownership on all code - which means that they don't allow their contributions to be available under any other license. In contrast, the ASF only asks for a copyright license and we don't care what other licenses you grant other people. This is not to mention that certain countries (such as Germany) forbid copyright transfer entirely. I have no idea what the FSF does for its German contributors. -- justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Harmony Podlling Quarterly Report
--On July 31, 2005 12:54:59 PM -0400 Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Uh ... it already does. We added that ages ago. Are you asking for a change, or just unaware? Unaware. Doh. (Cue Guido's time machine.) -- justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request for Comment : Harmony Contribution Policy
--On August 1, 2005 12:06:27 AM -0400 Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Comments? (Like I need to ask for them... ) I think Part II should be removed or rather be the opposite: which components are you forbidden to participate in due to the answers in the questionnaire. I don't like seeing the community get pigeon-holed like that: commit access should be 'blanket' unless there's a legal reason not to do so. Part IV should contain mention of the software grant to the ASF. We should have these on file for all large donations not developed under the 'confines' of the ASF. Part VIII should probably mention employed by a corporation. (Self-employed people wouldn't necessarily need to sign a CCLA.) Furthermore, my understanding of copyright law is that you can't be tainted by 'reading' source code years ago and then writing a version independently. (In fact, the examples I've heard of are 'minutes apart' is legally acceptable.) Of course, patent infringement occurs whether you've read the code or not. FWIW, our compiler languages class here at UC Irvine teaches Java internals - therefore, they'd all be 'tainted' under this definition - which isn't actually the case. The relevant questions should be whether you are currently covered by an NDA or other confidential agreements with Sun (err, BigCo). -- justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request for Comment : Harmony Contribution Policy
On Aug 1, 2005, at 1:22 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: --On August 1, 2005 12:06:27 AM -0400 Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Comments? (Like I need to ask for them... ) I think Part II should be removed or rather be the opposite: which components are you forbidden to participate in due to the answers in the questionnaire. I don't like seeing the community get pigeon- holed like that: commit access should be 'blanket' unless there's a legal reason not to do so. That is what Part II is - you can do anything except for the specific pieces for which you declare. I see why you were confused by it, so we'll clean up that language. Part IV should contain mention of the software grant to the ASF. We should have these on file for all large donations not developed under the 'confines' of the ASF. Ah, yes. I thought I stated that clearly that standard ASF policy is the base for this all - SG or CCLA+SG is required. Will fix to be clear. Part VIII should probably mention employed by a corporation. (Self-employed people wouldn't necessarily need to sign a CCLA.) Sure. Good point. Furthermore, my understanding of copyright law is that you can't be tainted by 'reading' source code years ago and then writing a version independently. I think it depends on the source. If there's a trade secret that you learned in the process, you probably still have a problem, right? (In fact, the examples I've heard of are 'minutes apart' is legally acceptable.) Of course, patent infringement occurs whether you've read the code or not. FWIW, our compiler languages class here at UC Irvine teaches Java internals - therefore, they'd all be 'tainted' under this definition - which isn't actually the case. Ok - this is a good example to help is iteratively clarify. How are they tainted? The relevant questions should be whether you are currently covered by an NDA or other confidential agreements with Sun (err, BigCo). -- justin It's more than just Sun - that's the problem. Sun licenses their code to everyone, and therefore you could be under NDA with, oh, IBM, because you worked on IBMs production J2SE platform which uses licensed Sun code... geir -- Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437 [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Harmony Podlling Quarterly Report
Justin Erenkrantz wrote: The FSF demands copyright ownership on all code - which means that they don't allow their contributions to be available under any other license. In contrast, the ASF only asks for a copyright license and we don't care what other licenses you grant other people. So code submitted to the list would either be available to everyone by default, or must be labeled as NOT A CONTRIBUTION so that an exclusive copyright can be transferred to the FSF? --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Graduate Derby as sub-project of Apache DB
All done. It was actually pretty easy but messy. In the process I did clean up the sorting of the projects (they are sorted now) and the duplications of the committers on the whoweare.xml page. Jelly is weird stuff... :-) Regards Henning On Sun, 2005-07-31 at 19:00 -0400, Brian McCallister wrote: I created jira issues for the infra folks to please move the repo and add the Derby committers to the DB group. Once that goes through someone (from Derby =) can set up the site under /www/db.apache.org/derby/ and we can fight with maven until it links the Derby stuff from the top level (is a reactor build deeper than my understanding of maven). -Brian On Jul 29, 2005, at 6:47 PM, Jean T. Anderson wrote: Daniel John Debrunner wrote: Jeremy Boynes wrote: Jean T. Anderson wrote: I'm happy to take care of web site updates on Jeremy's list below. Brian, can we move forward with graduation-related work, such as requesting that infrastructure move derby's svn repo and committer karmas from infrastructure to db? Or are we waiting for some other loop to close first? I believe we are waiting for the conclusion of the vote by the DB PMC. I think we can move forward, as I understand the DB-PMC is voting on adding Derby-PPMC members to itself. That should not hold up any move of svn or karma. According to http://www.apache.org/dev/committers.html , it's still the DB PMC that needs to put the request into infra for the move (The request to the infrastructure@ list or the apmail@ alias needs to come from your Project Management Committee.). -jean According to the status file DB-PMC has voted to accept Derby, that was my understanding as well after talking to Brian last week. Dan. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
