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 Wed, 02 Jul 2008 09:04:54 GMT
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.
>>>>> (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
>>>>>> this
>>>>>> work": if you download a single file from svn there is no "work"
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>> done
>>>>>> then I think there is something above the JAMES PMC: either it is
>>>>>> law
>>>>>> for some jurisdiction I should care about or it is some entity in
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>> 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've done that for the Legal Affairs committee:

And it has already been applied:

Now "Legal Affairs" exists (also in the main menu!) ;-)

I'd like to do something similar for Infrastructure, because the current 
Infrastructure menu points to http://www.apache.org/dev/ and there you 
find informations about ASF infrastructure and not about the 
Infrastructure committee and its role in the ASF, but here I'm lost 
because I can't find an explanation of when Infrastructure committee has 
been established, what is its role and what are the duties. Can you give 
me some hints?


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

View raw message