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: Oversized NOTICE for binary distributions (Was: [jsieve] Any more TODO before 0.2 release?)
Date Thu, 19 Jun 2008 18:36:37 GMT
Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto:
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 10:37 AM, Stefano Bagnara <apache@bago.org> wrote:
>> Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto:
>>> On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 7:56 PM, Stefano Bagnara <apache@bago.org> wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>> If you want to strictly follow #2 rule then all of them will need a
>>>> different NOTICE/LICENSE for each package but as you can see this is an
>>>> extensive list and they all use the same file. If this is really an issue
>>>> for the board
>>> no: this a matter for the PMCs and legal affairs
>> Cool!
>> I only head "Legal Affairs" in the context of 3rd party before: "Licenses
>> not appearing on these lists must be explicitly approved by the ASF Legal
>> Affairs officer prior to distribution."
>> So, as long as we comply with what is already written in the 3rd party
>> document we (JAMES PMC) can decide whatever we want and there is no ASF
>> policy for this?
> IIRC the 3rd party document is just a draft. what matters is complying
> with the policy about LICENSE and NOTICE documents described in other
> places

I know this http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
and I monitor http://www.apache.org/legal/ and referred documents.
Is there anything else I should know / any other policy?

> but yes, the policy is relatively wide and JAMES is relatively free to decide

Good to know.

>>>> and #2 is a rule for the board then the board should read this
>>>> list and take action to allow people understand there is such a rule,
>>>> because WE (ASF committers) are not really aware of all of this stuff: we
>>>> need as few rules as possible, but written somewhere :-)
>>> no: this a matter for the PMCs and legal affairs
>> Sorry but this is not clear. In this specific case: is it something we can
>> decide ourselves or something we should submit to legal affairs?
>> Should I open a JIRA issue on the new LEGAL JIRA for this?
> the board delegates to the legal-affairs on issues such as this. so
> legal affairs needs to be contacts, not the board.

Are the "LEGAL" JIRA project and the legal-discuss list the right places 
to contact this "Legal-affairs" ? (was: Should I open a JIRA issue on 
the new LEGAL JIRA for this?)

>>>> FWIW I'm much more scared by the missing NOTICE file in the netware
>>>> binary
>>>> package of httpd than the fact that each of the NOTICE above may include
>>>> sentences not appropriate for the source or the binary package.
>>>> *IMHO*: The first is a legal issue, the second is instead a matter of
>>>> style
>>>> and personal preference.
>>> why is it a legal issue?
>> *IF* the "netware package of httpd" includes third party stuff requiring
>> attribution they are violating the license for that stuff because they
>> forgot to place there the NOTICE including the attribution.
>> Isn't this a legal issue?
> i haven't take a good look into this issue. even if it is a technical
> breach then i suspect it's not dangerous  (AIUI attribution clauses
> are hard to enforce under US law) but it would be a good idea to bring
> this possible oversight to the project's attention.  please post a
> friendly note to the legal-discuss list or raise a JIRA.

I sent a message to the dev@httpd with pointers. I'll monitor if they 
moderate my message, or I'll post to legal-discuss.
I don't have a bugzilla account (httpd uses bugzilla) and I wouldn't 
want to create one for this ;-)

Thank you for patiently answering all of my questions! I hope you don't 
hate me :-)

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

View raw message