Daniel, IMO you are exactly right both on JIRA and it becoming a dead horse (usually a good sign that has occurred when someone politely asks you to change the subject line ;) ).
The JIRA process appears perfectly fine for individual works and works owned by corporations. The problem I was pointing out to Tim is that he is asking others to follow a protocol that he has not been following himself. The protocol Tim has been following created joint works instead of individual works (Not meaning to point Tim out specifically, MANY contributions has been made in a similar manner). Whoever has the ability to subscribe to the legal-discuss mailing list (committers) could you please post the following questions? Given the following excerpt from FindLaw http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Jan/1/241478.html and your own personal legal background, "When the copyright in a work is jointly owned, each joint owner can use or license the work in the United States without the consent of the other owner, provided that the use does not destroy the value of the work and the parties do not have an agreement requiring the consent of each owner for use or licensing. A joint owner who licenses a work must share any royalties he or she receives with the other owners." Is it possible for a joint owner to license the jointly owned work under Apache2 or other compatible license? It appears on the surface that the Apache2 license destroys the value of the joint work itself (albeit increasing the value of the ether). If it is only possible with the consent of the other joint owners, does that agreement constitute a partnership between the joint owners? If it does constitute a partnership, does this partnership bind each joint owner jointly and severely to any and all liabilities another joint owner may create in their representations of the joint work? Thank You! --- Daniel Kunkel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi > > Ok, Chris, now you've confused me. > > I don't have a problem understanding that collaborative efforts co- > mingled outside of "Apache Assigned" jira issues could have severe > issues, but it seems to me that collaboration is currently possible > via > the inefficient jira patch process. > > Isn't it completely appropriate for Collaborator A, say Phani to make > an > "Apache Assigned" contribution in jira which Collaborator B improves > and > again assigns it to Apache in an updated patch? > > This still has all of the challenges I've mentioned before, > > - One collaborator at a time. > - A quickly disappearing svn code state that the patch was created > against. > - inefficient and often chaotic patch handling. > - likelihood of losing the work to history > - lost opportunity to create strong community with more active > energized > contributors. > - duplication of effort as more than one developer independently work > on > features. > etc. > > If this jira patch process is legal, then I think we're at the point > of > beating a dead horse, but hopefully with the wheels of change in > motion. > > Daniel > > On Sat, 2007-01-27 at 08:28 -0800, Chris Howe wrote: > > Tim, > > I do agree that there is a protocol in place, but I do not agree > that > > everyone is following it. Those that seem the most opposed to a > > discussion about a sandbox are the ones that keep pumping out the > joint > > works. From my limited understanding, this does not appear to be a > > legal format to license under open source without exposing the > > contributor to partnership liability and the exposing the community > > with the task of rooting out the offending code. > > > > I gave you a list of 10 environments that are complex enough and > > require > > more than incremental changes. Tabling this discussion will > continue to > > lose many of the valuable contributions of the community (Like > Phani's > > work on Google Checkout integration). > > > > In addition, continuing to table this discussion will increase the > > likelihood that offending code makes its way into the project. If > > someone makes a stink about it, my understanding is that the remedy > is > > for the ASF and anyone using Apache OFBiz to cease and desist until > the > > offending code is removed. If a business is running off Apache > OFBiz, > > how much will it cost them to cease and desist? If they choose not > to > > C & D, how much will it cost them to defend against a copyright > > infringement claim? > > > > If my legal understanding is incorrect, someone please post the > > question to legal-discuss and get a real lawyer's opinion. If > there is > > no real risk in these joint works being added to the project, > address > > it as such. > > > > Regards, > > Chris > > > > --- Tim Ruppert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Can we all agree on the fact that there is a protocol in place, > that > > > > > > if followed, allows everyone the ability to pass code around in a > > > > legal format? This may or may not be the most optimal format for > > > > said collaboration, but it does permit us to contribute back to > the > > > community in a meaningful way. > > > > > > Let's table this sandbox discussion until we find a movement > complex > > > > > > enough that it requires something more than incremental changes > to be > > > > > > made to the trunk before we can agree to include it. Does that > sound > > > > > > reasonable? Once there is an idea to build something that cannot > > > > follow this incremental pattern, we can evaluate where we are in > > > > terms of resources and determine the best course of action to > follow. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Tim > > > -- > > > Tim Ruppert > > > HotWax Media > > > http://www.hotwaxmedia.com > > > > > > o:801.649.6594 > > > f:801.649.6595 > > > > -- > Daniel > > *-.,,.-*"*-.,,.-*"*-.,,.-*"*-.,,.-*"*-.,,.-*"*-.,,.-*"*-.,,.-*"*- > Have a GREAT Day! > > Daniel Kunkel [EMAIL PROTECTED] > BioWaves, LLC http://www.BioWaves.com > 14150 NE 20th St. Suite F1 > Bellevue, WA 98007 > 800-734-3588 425-895-0050 > http://www.Apartment-Pets.com http://www.Illusion-Optical.com > http://www.Card-Offer.com http://www.RackWine.com > http://www.JokesBlonde.com http://www.Brain-Fun.com > *-.,,.-*"*-.,,.-*"*-.,,.-*"*-.,,.-*"*-.,,.-*"*-.,,.-*"*-.,,.-*"*- > >
