On 6/20/08, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto: >> On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 7:21 PM, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto: >>>> On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 10:30 AM, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> My understanding of something that belongs to LICENSE ended up in >>>>> NOTICE >>>>> because Daniel Kulp and Me had different instructions or misunderstood >>>>> Cliff >>>>> "directives". >>>> cliff tends towards sublety (too long talking to lawyers, i think). >>>> categorical directives aren't his style. >>> That's why I used quotes, and "his style" is what created this ambiguity >>> ;-) >>> A directive would have created a certain result, this way people keep >>> asking >>> what we have to do, most project put all the licenses in the LICENSE >>> file, >>> but Daniel placed license references in the NOTICE and it seems Cliff >>> approved that work ;-) >> >> copyright law is rarely categorical: it's tough to come up with a good >> general rule which can be blindly applied >> >> AIUI policy is relatively flexible about placement but best practice >> is to be encouraged > > I agree. Someone with the right skills (a lawyer) should take the > responsibility to encourage the best practice by suggesting a policy: if > this responsibility is not taken by people with appropriate skills it > will anyway be taken from someone else and the result will be worse.
No - lawyers are not the right people to ask to define policy. Apache is a charity and has ethical concerns above and beyond copyright law. We retain legal councils (thanks everyone :-) but we respect their time and so refrain from consulting them formally unless neccessary. Legal discuss has several people with legal training who offer input (on occassion) but not opinions. >>>> >>>> (perhaps you mean culpability) >>> Maybe, sorry but even a dictionary does not help too much with this >>> terms: >>> in italian they often are synonymous. >> >> culpability is about the apportioning of blame and so it typically >> used in a negative sense. in this context, it finding of blame by the >> legal system. responsibility is more about ethics, morality and duty. >> one may be responsible for a deed but others may be found culpable in >> law for it. > > I definitely meant culpability, then. >>>>> The ASF-ALv2 header tells people "see the NOTICE file distributed with >>>>> this >>>>> work": if you download a single file from svn there is no "work" (or >>>>> there >>>>> is no NOTICE in the "distribution"). >>>> the document is the work. subversion is the distribution mechanism. >>>> (and yes apache spent years working through this and other matters >>>> with lawyers) >>> Ok, so there is no NOTICE file within the work, because the work is the >>> fiel >>> that should be referred in the NOTICE file. >>> >>> If instead you create an archive and inside the archive you have both the >>> "single file" and the NOTICE then there is a NOTICE file distributed with >>> the work. >>> >>> Otherwise if the fact that a file in a folder of an http server >>> (subversion >>> is not different from it) and another NOTICE file is in a different >>> folder >>> means that it is "distributed with" the first file simply because it uses >>> the same distribution mechanism and the same source then this would be a >>> big >>> issue, because if we have a GPL file in the same server every other file >>> from the same server will be hit by the GPL virality: fortunately people >>> (lawyers) already agreed that this is not the case. >> >> the GPL specifically addresses aggregation in this particular fashion > > I agree with this if we talk about GPL3. But GPLv2 ? Is this addressed? > Where/How? See section starting "In addition mere aggregation" >>> Sure, don't take me so "hard" as I seem: I just want to understand and I >>> hate when I think I understood something and instead history keeps >>> repeating >>> with topics revamped over and over again. >>> The *fact* is that most ASF committers do not understand this matter and >>> most ASF committers do not even care for this while the *problem* is that >>> there is too many committers spreading personal preferences as >>> LAWS/RULES/POLICIES when they are not ;-) >> >> energy is required to change and improve things. > > I have energy :-) > Often I would like to flame less and improve things more, but having > energy spent without direction/control is wasted energy. > >>>>> I'm am in the JAMES PMC, so, if people tell the JAME PMC what MUST be >>>>> done >>>>> then I think there is something above the JAMES PMC: either it is some >>>>> law >>>>> for some jurisdiction I should care about or it is some entity in the >>>>> ASF: >>>>> if it is not the board then the board itself should tell us what is the >>>>> entity entitled in telling us what we MUST do. >>>>> >>>>> BTW we know there is some "ASF wide"-policy: who define it, where are >>>>> written and what is the process to discuss changes or disambiguate >>>>> issues? >>>>> Either the board define them, or there is a community/members process >>>>> in >>>>> place. >>>> members appoints and oversees the board. the board appoints committees >>>> from the membership to deal day to day with some matters. in this >>>> case, the policy is set by infrastructure and legal-affairs >>>> committers. changing policy means lobbying these committees who will >>>> then consider proposals and take them to the membership. i'm a member >>>> and on the legal-affairs committee but IIRC i haven't spoken with that >>>> hat on in this forum. >>> THANK YOU! This is a first step. >>> >>> here: http://www.apache.org/foundation/ i see: >>> "V.P., Legal Affairs Sam Ruby" >>> On www.apache.org I cannot find who are "committers" for "infrastructure" >>> and "legal-affairs", but at least I have a "V.P.".. >> >> there committees lack public documentation > > This is an issue: we are part of the ASF and we don't have information > on people having such an important role for our community. Submit a patch ;-) > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-29 > >>> In this page: http://people.apache.org/~jim/committers.html >>> I find "legal" and "infrastructure" groups. >> >> there are permission groups not committers >> >> <snip> >> >>> No references to "Legal Affairs" or "Infrastructure" :-( >>> >>> The whole bylaws document do not reference "Legal Affairs" or >>> "Infrastructure" :-( >> >> committees are created by the board >> >>> Reading that stuff I was convinced there was the Board and the project >>> PMCs, >>> that's why I kept talking about JAMES PMC and the Board and no one else! >>> ... >>> I understand from your words that there is much more than what I read on >>> apache website... and I'm interested in learning it. >> >> IIRC there is some more information in the committers repository >> >> - robert > > Thank you for the pointer, I found the list of members for the 2 > committees and added a comment to LEGAL-29. > > So long 4 JIRAs opened, hope we are done and I hope the "Legal Affairs" > team won't be hurt for this! > > I really love the new LEGAL JIRA: mailing list was not really the right > place to get thing tracked and documented. > > Stefano > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
