Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto:
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
I know this http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
and I monitor http://www.apache.org/legal/ and referred documents.
Is there anything else I should know / any other policy?
but yes, the policy is relatively wide and JAMES is relatively free to decide
Good to know.
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.
Are the "LEGAL" JIRA project and the legal-discuss list the right places
to contact this "Legal-affairs" ? (was: Should I open a JIRA issue on
the new LEGAL JIRA for this?)
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.
I sent a message to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] with pointers. I'll monitor if they
moderate my message, or I'll post to legal-discuss.
I don't have a bugzilla account (httpd uses bugzilla) and I wouldn't
want to create one for this ;-)
Thank you for patiently answering all of my questions! I hope you don't
hate me :-)
Stefano
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
