On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 10:37 AM, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto: >> >> On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 7:56 PM, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> [...] >>> If you want to strictly follow #2 rule then all of them will need a >>> different NOTICE/LICENSE for each package but as you can see this is an >>> extensive list and they all use the same file. If this is really an issue >>> for the board >> >> no: this a matter for the PMCs and legal affairs > > Cool! > I only head "Legal Affairs" in the context of 3rd party before: "Licenses > not appearing on these lists must be explicitly approved by the ASF Legal > Affairs officer prior to distribution." > So, as long as we comply with what is already written in the 3rd party > document we (JAMES PMC) can decide whatever we want and there is no ASF > policy for this?
IIRC the 3rd party document is just a draft. what matters is complying with the policy about LICENSE and NOTICE documents described in other places but yes, the policy is relatively wide and JAMES is relatively free to decide >>> and #2 is a rule for the board then the board should read this >>> list and take action to allow people understand there is such a rule, >>> because WE (ASF committers) are not really aware of all of this stuff: we >>> need as few rules as possible, but written somewhere :-) >> >> no: this a matter for the PMCs and legal affairs > > Sorry but this is not clear. In this specific case: is it something we can > decide ourselves or something we should submit to legal affairs? > Should I open a JIRA issue on the new LEGAL JIRA for this? the board delegates to the legal-affairs on issues such as this. so legal affairs needs to be contacts, not the board. >>> FWIW I'm much more scared by the missing NOTICE file in the netware >>> binary >>> package of httpd than the fact that each of the NOTICE above may include >>> sentences not appropriate for the source or the binary package. >>> *IMHO*: The first is a legal issue, the second is instead a matter of >>> style >>> and personal preference. >> >> why is it a legal issue? > > *IF* the "netware package of httpd" includes third party stuff requiring > attribution they are violating the license for that stuff because they > forgot to place there the NOTICE including the attribution. > Isn't this a legal issue? i haven't take a good look into this issue. even if it is a technical breach then i suspect it's not dangerous (AIUI attribution clauses are hard to enforce under US law) but it would be a good idea to bring this possible oversight to the project's attention. please post a friendly note to the legal-discuss list or raise a JIRA. - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
