On 01/09/2010 11:01, Yusuke Yamamoto wrote:
Now I'm not requesting to change the license retroactively.
It's okay to keep including my work in the released versions.
As the copyright holder, and the originator of the work, I'm just
declaring that my work will no longer licensed under the ASL in the
future versions.
AFAIK, the copyright holder can change the license in the future release.
Like oracle changed the license of WebLogic Server from BEA's license
to OTN license.
That is not how it works, end of discussion.
Mark
Any further discussions should take place between legally qualified
people.
Please have Richard respond to me faithfully. Otherwise I need to
request here.
Thanks,
Yusuke
On Sep 1, 2010, at 6:40 PM, Mark Proctor wrote:
On 01/09/2010 10:16, Yusuke Yamamoto wrote:
No that is not the way that OSS licensing works. You as the
copyright holder may release future versions of code you hold the
copyright for under different licenses. You cannot retro-actively
change the license of something.
Yeah, you're right on that part.
Red Hat shouldn't be the copyright holder since it's done by my
spare time. There's no term in the employment agreement that enables
Red Hat to grab copyright ownership of employee's work done by
unpaid hours.
You are confusing copyright, go seek legal council - maybe Richard?
And as the copyright holder, I do not wish to release my work under
the ASL in the future.
So please remove them from the trunk and do not include in the
future versions.
Either you are incredibly stupid, or just playing dumb to annoy
everyone and waste people's time. I don't think myself or others
could have been any clearer. You cannot retroactive unlicense
something. That code which you have contributed is under the terms of
the ASL, FOREVER, you cannot change that. Under the terms of the ASL
we can modify it and distribute and make derivitives from it in
further versions FOREVER.
I have made that clear, your code will not be removed, this matter is
closed and you will achieve nothing more in discussing this further
here. Any further discussions should take place between legally
qualified people.
Now grow up and stop embarassing yourself.
Mark
Thanks,
Yusuke
On Sep 1, 2010, at 4:22 PM, Mark Proctor wrote:
On 01/09/2010 02:50, 山本 裕介 wrote:
At the time of your contributions to Drools and other
projects you were a Red Hat employee. The Red Hat legal
department has determined that it has the right to copy,
modify and distribute your contributions under the Apache
License version 2.0 and considers this matter closed.
Richard didn't explain that.
I didn't use Red Hat time to fix those bugs, translate message
resources. I believe that "I am/was a Red Hat employee" doesn't
matter. I'm not paid for the task.
"At the time the code was contributed in good faith under the
Apache license, you cannot then decide at a later date to change
your mind."
My understanding is that people just do not want to undone their
contributions usually. That is how OSS works.
Technically the copyright holder of translated message resources,
program codes is the originator.
I agreed to distribute my work under the ASL, but I didn't tell
that I willingly give away the copyright to the project.
Anybody who originates their work (i.e. the copyright holder)
should be able to decide the license at a later date.
No that is not the way that OSS licensing works. You as the
copyright holder may release future versions of code you hold the
copyright for under different licenses. You cannot retro-actively
change the license of something.
Imagine I release a project under ASL, I get a million users. I
then change my mind and revoke that and tell those million users,
you can't use that under OSS anymore as i've changed my mind, if
you want to use it pay me 10 billion dollars.
You are confusing copyright and licensing, go seek legal council.
Mark
Richard, any comment?
On Sep 1, 2010, at 8:27 AM, Michael Neale wrote:
So is the reason that there is a dispute over another copyright
holder? (ie these changes were copied in violation of that
copyright in the first place) - or a case of changing-minds about
rights to the commits of the original work? (if the latter then
close the issue - nothing can or should be done - as it is a
licencing issue then, not a copyright issue, and as Mark says the
licence doesn't permit that revoking).
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 7:56 AM, Mark Proctor
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Yusuke,
At the time of your contributions to Drools and other
projects you were a Red Hat employee. The Red Hat legal
department has determined that it has the right to copy,
modify and distribute your contributions under the Apache
License version 2.0 and considers this matter closed. If you
have any further need to discuss this please do so with Red
Hat legal, - you have their contact details.
Even if you were not a Red Hat employee, which you were at
the time, you cannot undo an OSS code contribution, that is
not how OSS licensing works. At the time the code was
contributed in good faith under the Apache license, you
cannot then decide at a later date to change your mind. The
OSS licenses, be it ASL or LGPL or GPL, are designed
specifically to provide certainty in that area. Without this
level of certainty end user OSS adoption would be a minefield
as every time developers fall out, which happens often, one
could demand all their code be removed and this would impact
everyone who has invested time installing that software in
production systems.
Mark
On 31/08/2010 17:41, 山本 裕介 wrote:
I have consulted RH legal dept. only to get no meaningful
response.
I guess Edson is the one who commit most of these files.
The how and why they need to be uncommitted is attached to
the Jira issue.
Thanks,
Yusuke
On Sep 1, 2010, at 1:34 AM, Mauricio Salatino wrote:
Hi Yusuke, good question. I'm not sure where is the right
place, but you are only asking to rollback your changes right?
who commit all your contributions to the jboss repo?
I also saw that you mention: "For several reasons, I
decided to withdraw those contributions introduced from my
spare time. "
can you mention those reasons? so we, as community can
learn why you want to remove your contributions. I'm just
curious.
Greetings.
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:50 PM, 山本 裕介
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Where is the appropriate forum for copyright issues?
On Sep 1, 2010, at 12:45 AM, Greg Barton wrote:
> This is not the appropriate forum for copyrighgt issues.
>
> GreG
>
> On Aug 31, 2010, at 9:40, 山本 裕介
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> There's a copyright violation issue on Drools 5.1
release.
> Please remove the changes listed in the following issue.
> https://jira.jboss.org/browse/JBRULES-2660
>
> Thanks,
> Yusuke
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
--
- CTO @ http://www.plugtree.com <http://www.plugtree.com/>
- MyJourney @ http://salaboy.wordpress.com
<http://salaboy.wordpress.com/>
- Co-Founder @ http://www.jbug.com.ar
<http://www.jbug.com.ar/>
- Salatino "Salaboy" Mauricio -
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
_______________________________________________
rules-dev mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
--
Michael D Neale
home: www.michaelneale.net <http://www.michaelneale.net/>
blog: michaelneale.blogspot.com <http://michaelneale.blogspot.com/>
_______________________________________________
rules-dev mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
_______________________________________________
rules-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
_______________________________________________
rules-dev mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
_______________________________________________
rules-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
_______________________________________________
rules-dev mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
_______________________________________________
rules-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
_______________________________________________
rules-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
