james-server-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Robert Burrell Donkin" <robertburrelldon...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [jsieve] Any more TODO before 0.2 release?
Date Wed, 18 Jun 2008 21:40:08 GMT
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 7:13 PM, Stefano Bagnara <apache@bago.org> wrote:


> In most Licenses for product I use I read a lot of boilerplate that does not
> apply to the specific product I use, but the licensor simply use the same
> license for each product. Some term is clearly out of scope, but I don't
> this this make the license invalid. IMHO the same applies to our use case.

the subject of the discussion is not LICENSE but NOTICE

> I agree that in a perfect world each artifact would have its own perfect
> NOTICE/LICENSE file, but what I want to understand is what the board say we
> MUST do and what the board say you SHOULD do that but it is a policy issue
> and each PMC is entitled to decide this.
> To mantain a LICENSE/NOTICE tuple for each released artifact is a PITA and
> IMHO unnecessary waste of time.
>> So, I'd use m-r-r-p for the normal maven jars and configure the assembly
>> plugin to include the legal files for (1) in the distros.
>> I started feeling much more strongly about making the NOTICE files correct
>> (without extra verbiage) after reading Roy Fieldings comments on
>> legal-discuss back in january on the LICENSE and NOTICE files and SVN
>> thread.
> You see I was in that thread too with many post about my opinions and doubt
> about mixing policies, legal requirements and personal preferences. I still
> have the same doubt I had before that thread.
> From my understand each one ended up keeping his previous opinion and we had
> no new board "rules" from that.

the board of the ASF set very few rules: the legal-affairs committee
are charged with legal stuff with approval by the membership

> I personally didn't reply to this:
> http://markmail.org/message/mrbob6xo7c42bqh3
> only because if it is true then I would resign from the PMC because I don't
> want to be liable for each commit made by others and we could skip the
> release vote process at all because our repository would be always
> releasable and we would need to vet each commit in RTC as a written rule by
> the board.

the vote is to ensure that a release is official. this offers a
measure of protection to release managers under most reasonable legal

> No single person will convince me ( :-) ) that a NOTICE file in a random
> folder allow me to stop violating IP for a file in another random folder:
> either you link them someway or the NOTICE file is useless.
> The root folder of a redistributed package is clearly a special place, a
> random parent folder in the svn repository is not so special to make you
> liable or make you safe IMHO.

examples are so-called attribution licenses which require attribution
and movement of copyright notices on imported codebases

> I would like to understand what kind of IP we violate bu having this file
> there:
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/james/server/trunk/stage/javax.mail/jars/mail-1.4.1.jar
> if we removed this file:
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/james/server/trunk/NOTICE.txt
> I doubt there is a law (in any country) telling people that if they obtain a
> file from an url then they have to try to request for the NOTICE.txt file in
> each parent folder:
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/james/server/trunk/stage/javax.mail/jars/NOTICE.txt
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/james/server/trunk/stage/javax.mail/NOTICE.txt
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/james/server/trunk/stage/NOTICE.txt
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/james/server/trunk/NOTICE.txt
> until you find one and then you have to take it for good.

don't mistake policy for law: apache asks that projects indicate this
information so that the public can more easily check and understand
the copyright characteristics of the work. happily, this requirement
also ensures that the requirements of attribution licenses and
relocated copyrights are correct implemented.

> BTW I am only one more troll in the repeating NOTICE/LICENSE flame. I would
> simply like to have the board publish clear RULES about what ASF committers
> HAVE TO do regarding releases and svn, and what behaviour/solutions are
> policies to be defined by single PMCs. I would keep my opinion on what is
> legally required or not, but I would for sure follow the board requirements.

apache believes in self-governing communities. this is why the board
does not impose rules from above. i've been involved in the legal side
at apache for several years now, and the sad truth of the matter is
that copyright and trademark law are not really suitable for a set of
simple rules to follow.

- robert

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

View raw message