On Jul 31, 2005, at 4:36 AM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
On 7/31/05, Geir Magnusson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jul 30, 2005, at 7:36 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
may i suggest that a practical workaround for the issue (that
started
this debate) would be to ask all contributors to use jira.
LOL. Yes, we're going to use JIRA. That's not the issue at all -
we're talking about the mailing list.
why not ask anyone who posts a contribution significant enough to be
copyrightable (AIUI very small patches just one or two lines probably
are not) to submit it through JIRA?
We could. However, one of the goals of harmony is a modular
implementation architecture, I think quite a bit of presentation of
code may be in situ for discussion purposes, as is natural. I
suppose we could ask that people also punch it into JIRA at the same
time. Sounds like a pain, though.
once this becomes embedded as a social convention, the whole question
of licenses for contributions through the mailing list would become
moot.
IMHO the whole concept of a default license for a mailing list is
problematic. it's hard to see how we could ensure that users have
given knowing consent.
Well, you won't be able to subscribe without seeing it, and the
monthly reminders should help. We should also put a footer on each
message.
with the ASL2, apache is covered through the license but AIUI this
does not extend to sublicensing?
Sure it does.
. personally speaking, i do not accept
new files contributed through the lists which do not have the ASL2
boiler plate at the top. this way is common at apache.
We won't either, and we probably won't from the mailing list anyway -
we'd ask that this kind of contribution is made through JIRA.
Don't forget the core issue here (there's been a lot of participation
in this thread that didn't seem to be aware of the goal... probably
may fault for not being clearer...) : the core is that members of the
GNU Classpath project and other GPL-based communities would have a
problem using code that was on AL because of the FSFs claim that the
AL2 and GPL are incompatible. We were trying to solve that in a way
that enables the broadest participation in our architecture /
modularity work.
it is very
difficult to see how a user posting code with a specific license to a
mailing list is given knowing consent for that license to be removed
and replaced by a different license by a third party. it all seems a
little fuzzy legally.
I'm not quite sure what you are talking about here.
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
