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 12:37:01 GMT
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.

>>> (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? 

>> 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.

>> In this page: http://people.apache.org/~jim/committers.html
>> I find "legal" and "infrastructure" groups.
> there are permission groups not committers
> <snip>
>> No references to "Legal Affairs" or "Infrastructure" :-(
>> The whole bylaws document do not reference "Legal Affairs" or
>> "Infrastructure" :-(
> committees are created by the board
>> Reading that stuff I was convinced there was the Board and the project PMCs,
>> that's why I kept talking about JAMES PMC and the Board and no one else! ...
>> I understand from your words that there is much more than what I read on
>> apache website... and I'm interested in learning it.
> IIRC there is some more information in the committers repository
> - robert

Thank you for the pointer, I found the list of members for the 2 
committees and added a comment to LEGAL-29.

So long 4 JIRAs opened, hope we are done and I hope the "Legal Affairs" 
team won't be hurt for this!

I really love the new LEGAL JIRA: mailing list was not really the right 
place to get thing tracked and documented.


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

View raw message