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: Oversized NOTICE for binary distributions (Was: [jsieve] Any more TODO before 0.2 release?)
Date Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:46:56 GMT
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

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

>>> 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.

>>> 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.

- 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