Why don't we wait and see what suggestions surface on the legal-discuss list before we continue this debate on the esme mailing lists? Without their legal advice, it is impossible to achieve clarity or an agreement on our options.
I also agree that is critical to deal with this issue - however, a flamewar here and on Twitter isn't going to help anyone. D. On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 11:19 PM, Gianugo Rabellino <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 9:42 PM, Vassil Dichev <[email protected]> wrote: >> This time, though, I think a certain mentor's reply was more >> inflammatory and the options suggested were disappointing. > > OK - I'll try and start by being more accommodating: can you please > enlighten me on the other possible options? To me either we (the ASF) > have been licensed copyright on the ESME codebase, or we are not. In > the former, there is an ESME project. In the latter, there is nothing, > nada, zilch. As a mentor, I cannot possibly let statement such as > David's go unanswered - it needs to be crystal clear how things work. > And I would actually urge you to have a look at the point where I > jumped into the discussion, to be amazed at how accommodating and > willing to talk David was. > >> ESME could >> go on without David. But David's initial code contribution and design >> is in the heart of ESME so much so that it's inseparable. Removing >> David's contribution would mean starting from scratch. > > You are getting it wrong. There is no such thing as "David's > contribution" in Apache project terms, the moment David decides that > he didn't license his copyright to the ASF. It's code that landed here > by mistake, full stop. > >> So I was >> surprised that a mentor would suggest that splitting ESME right before >> the release is a better course of action than an educated discussion. > > I'm all for discussing, but I stand by my words: *if* David's code is > not licensed to the ASF as per the CLA and general Apache procedures > demand, then there is nothing the ASF can release. And may I point out > that it wasn't me (yet) resigning from the project? > >> I'd also say that my message is no more sneaky than Gianugo's email to >> the private list. My Twitter timeline is public and I know Bertrand is >> following me. By contrast, at the time of Gianugo's reply I wasn't on >> the private list. > > Oh, give me a break now. I wrote to the private list as this is about > a potentially sensitive legal and personal issue - as such, the > private list was a good candidate for discussion although I concede > that it works here as well. But calling my message sneaky because you > didn't do your freakin' homework as a committer by subscribing to all > the project lists is laughable. > >> I do not believe the ESME team needs special handholding to improve >> and evolve the project. > > Allow me to disagree. After a year, I am faced with core committers > who didn't bother read what they signed and understand the basis of > how the apache legal side works. Or even arguing that a major legal > issue is shouldn't get in the way of a release. That means a lot of > need for handholding. It actually means going back to ASF-101. > >> I think we have proven this during the course >> of the last year. There are regular commits and discussions, this >> means our motivation is strong enough. But I believe there are other >> things to try first before suggesting blocking the release and >> removing the project founder's code. > > Again, I'm all ears and I would love to hear alternatives. But please > consider I am not the one calling names and going away taking the ball > with me. All I'm saying is that if this issue isn't resolved for the > better, some code will have to go. And it would be completely > irresponsible to the verge of being insane to ever start considering > for a single moment that a release is even remotely possible given the > current state of affairs. You are building on sand. > > -- > Gianugo Rabellino > M: +44 779 5364 932 / +39 389 44 26 846 > Sourcesense - making sense of Open Source: http://www.sourcesense.com >
