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: LICENSE/NOTICE/policies/ASF/law (Was: [jsieve] Any more TODO before 0.2 release?)
Date Fri, 20 Jun 2008 13:59:18 GMT
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.
>>>> (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"

>>> 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 ;-)

> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-29
>>> 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.
> Stefano
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org

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

View raw message