james-server-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefano Bagnara <apa...@bago.org>
Subject Re: LICENSE/NOTICE/policies/ASF/law (Was: [jsieve] Any more TODO before 0.2 release?)
Date Fri, 20 Jun 2008 14:32:31 GMT
Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto:
> On 6/20/08, Stefano Bagnara <apache@bago.org> wrote:
>> Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto:
>>> On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 7:21 PM, Stefano Bagnara <apache@bago.org> wrote:
>>>> Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto:
>>>>> On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 10:30 AM, Stefano Bagnara <apache@bago.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> My understanding of something that belongs to LICENSE ended up in
>>>>>> NOTICE
>>>>>> because Daniel Kulp and Me had different instructions or misunderstood
>>>>>> Cliff
>>>>>> "directives".
>>>>> cliff tends towards sublety (too long talking to lawyers, i think).
>>>>> categorical directives aren't his style.
>>>> That's why I used quotes, and "his style" is what created this ambiguity
>>>> ;-)
>>>> A directive would have created a certain result, this way people keep
>>>> asking
>>>> what we have to do, most project put all the licenses in the LICENSE
>>>> file,
>>>> but Daniel placed license references in the NOTICE and it seems Cliff
>>>> approved that work ;-)
>>> copyright law is rarely categorical: it's tough to come up with a good
>>> general rule which can be blindly applied
>>>
>>> AIUI policy is relatively flexible about placement but best practice
>>> is to be encouraged
>> I agree. Someone with the right skills (a lawyer) should take the
>> responsibility to encourage the best practice by suggesting a policy: if
>> this responsibility is not taken by people with appropriate skills it
>> will anyway be taken from someone else and the result will be worse.
> 
> No - lawyers are not the right people to ask to define policy. Apache
> is a charity and has ethical concerns above and beyond copyright law.
> We retain legal councils (thanks everyone :-) but we respect their
> time and so refrain from consulting them formally unless neccessary.
> Legal discuss has several people with legal training who offer input
> (on occassion) but not opinions.

Hope you understood what I meant: if no one publish a policy I'll do 
what I want. I think it is better that someone that knows something more 
than me publish a policy (or best practice) so I don't have to define 
one for myself.

>>>>> (perhaps you mean culpability)
>>>> Maybe, sorry but even a dictionary does not help too much with this
>>>> terms:
>>>> in italian they often are synonymous.
>>> culpability is about the apportioning of blame and so it typically
>>> used in a negative sense. in this context, it finding of blame by the
>>> legal system. responsibility is more about ethics, morality and duty.
>>> one may be responsible for a deed but others may be found culpable in
>>> law for it.
>> I definitely meant culpability, then.
> 
>>>>>> The ASF-ALv2 header tells people "see the NOTICE file distributed
with
>>>>>> this
>>>>>> work": if you download a single file from svn there is no "work"
(or
>>>>>> there
>>>>>> is no NOTICE in the "distribution").
>>>>> the document is the work. subversion is the distribution mechanism.
>>>>> (and yes apache spent years working through this and other matters
>>>>> with lawyers)
>>>> Ok, so there is no NOTICE file within the work, because the work is the
>>>> fiel
>>>> that should be referred in the NOTICE file.
>>>>
>>>> If instead you create an archive and inside the archive you have both the
>>>> "single file" and the NOTICE then there is a NOTICE file distributed with
>>>> the work.
>>>>
>>>> Otherwise if the fact that a file in a folder of an http server
>>>> (subversion
>>>> is not different from it) and another NOTICE file is in a different
>>>> folder
>>>> means that it is "distributed with" the first file simply because it uses
>>>> the same distribution mechanism and the same source then this would be a
>>>> big
>>>> issue, because if we have a GPL file in the same server every other file
>>>> from the same server will be hit by the GPL virality: fortunately people
>>>> (lawyers) already agreed that this is not the case.
>>> the GPL specifically addresses aggregation in this particular fashion
>> I agree with this if we talk about GPL3. But GPLv2 ? Is this addressed?
>> Where/How?
> 
> See section starting "In addition mere aggregation"

You are right.
Let me change my example: how it is defined that "the NOTICE file 
distributed with this work" is one very file between the hundreds of 
NOTICE files being in our svn?
 From "distributed with" to "in the first parent folder of the 
distribution" there is creativity...

>>>> Sure, don't take me so "hard" as I seem: I just want to understand and I
>>>> hate when I think I understood something and instead history keeps
>>>> repeating
>>>> with topics revamped over and over again.
>>>> The *fact* is that most ASF committers do not understand this matter and
>>>> most ASF committers do not even care for this while the *problem* is that
>>>> there is too many committers spreading personal preferences as
>>>> LAWS/RULES/POLICIES when they are not ;-)
>>> energy is required to change and improve things.
>> I have energy :-)
>> Often I would like to flame less and improve things more, but having
>> energy spent without direction/control is wasted energy.
>>
>>>>>> I'm am in the JAMES PMC, so, if people tell the JAME PMC what MUST
be
>>>>>> done
>>>>>> then I think there is something above the JAMES PMC: either it is
some
>>>>>> law
>>>>>> for some jurisdiction I should care about or it is some entity in
the
>>>>>> ASF:
>>>>>> if it is not the board then the board itself should tell us what
is the
>>>>>> entity entitled in telling us what we MUST do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BTW we know there is some "ASF wide"-policy: who define it, where
are
>>>>>> written and what is the process to discuss changes or disambiguate
>>>>>> issues?
>>>>>> Either the board define them, or there is a community/members process
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> place.
>>>>> members appoints and oversees the board. the board appoints committees
>>>>> from the membership to deal day to day with some matters. in this
>>>>> case, the policy is set by infrastructure and legal-affairs
>>>>> committers. changing policy means lobbying these committees who will
>>>>> then consider proposals and take them to the membership. i'm a member
>>>>> and on the legal-affairs committee but IIRC i haven't spoken with that
>>>>> hat on in this forum.
>>>> THANK YOU! This is a first step.
>>>>
>>>> here: http://www.apache.org/foundation/ i see:
>>>> "V.P., Legal Affairs    Sam Ruby"
>>>> On www.apache.org I cannot find who are "committers" for "infrastructure"
>>>> and "legal-affairs", but at least I have a "V.P."..
>>> there committees lack public documentation
>> This is an issue: we are part of the ASF and we don't have information
>> on people having such an important role for our community.
> 
> Submit a patch ;-)

I'm getting there, really, but I have to understand things before 
wasting time.

The more I discuss the more I see there are much less policies I thought 
ASF had in place. Most of what I thought were a ASF policies are instead 
still being discussed and there is still no consensus in Legal Affairs. 
I'll keep reading.. now I have some more tool to understand who I should 
care to talk to and who to blame ;-)

Stefano


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org


Mime
View raw message