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 15:34:30 GMT
On 6/20/08, Stefano Bagnara <apache@bago.org> wrote:
> Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto:
>> 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.
>
> Hope you understood what I meant: if no one publish a policy I'll do
> what I want. I think it is better that someone that knows something more
> than me publish a policy (or best practice) so I don't have to define
> one for myself.

Unless someone proposes a policy, no policy will be agreed. The policy
proposed is probably not going to be the one adopted but a strawman is
a most useful catalyst.

>
>>>>>> (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"
>
> You are right.
> Let me change my example: how it is defined that "the NOTICE file
> distributed with this work" is one very file between the hundreds of
> NOTICE files being in our svn?
>  From "distributed with" to "in the first parent folder of the
> distribution" there is creativity...

Because it's clearly marked NOTICE

>
>>>>> 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 ;-)
>
> I'm getting there, really, but I have to understand things before
> wasting time.
>
> The more I discuss the more I see there are much less policies I thought
> ASF had in place. Most of what I thought were a ASF policies are instead
> still being discussed and there is still no consensus in Legal Affairs.
> I'll keep reading.. now I have some more tool to understand who I should
> care to talk to and who to blame ;-)

Apache traditionally prefers social convention to formal policy. But
IMHO Apache is now too large to act as a tribal unit and needs to move
to a more formal structure.

- Robert

>
> 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


Mime
View raw message