On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 2:14 PM, Michael Meeks <michael.me...@novell.com> wrote: > Hi Sam, > > On Thu, 2011-06-09 at 13:54 -0400, Sam Ruby wrote: >> The net of all of this is that there will need to be a substantial >> public aspect to this entire discussion. Yes, I will probably have >> some private discussions with ASF lawyers over time over this matter, >> but I can't see any way that we can -- or should -- avoid the need for >> public discussion over this matter. > > It still leaves something you can't answer though: whether it is Rob's > understanding of IBM's intention to camouflage such changes or to flag > them all openly and clearly. Ultimately with a suite of 8+ million > lines, packed with obscure features, and thousands of lines of change a > day it is fairly easy to slip things in, to the potential detriment of > other users of the code.
Independent of anybody's understanding of IBM's intent, I can tell you that the way we will proceed will be based on the input of ASF's lawyers, not IBM's. Meanwhile, I won't answer any hypothetical questions on this matter. When IBM is prepared to contribute fixes, I will participate. Anything I discover that is relevant to the ASF will be shared with ASF lawyers, and how we proceed will be take their input and guidance into consideration. I will restate that it is not just the initial contribution that we need to be concerned about. We will need to ensure that subsequent contributions by any of the contributors does not undo these changes. > Thanks, > > Michael. - Sam Ruby --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
