Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto:
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.
Hope you understood what I meant: if no one publish a policy I'll do
what I want. I think it is better that someone that knows something more
than me publish a policy (or best practice) so I don't have to define
one for myself.
(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"
You are right.
Let me change my example: how it is defined that "the NOTICE file
distributed with this work" is one very file between the hundreds of
NOTICE files being in our svn?
From "distributed with" to "in the first parent folder of the
distribution" there is creativity...
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 ;-)
I'm getting there, really, but I have to understand things before
wasting time.
The more I discuss the more I see there are much less policies I thought
ASF had in place. Most of what I thought were a ASF policies are instead
still being discussed and there is still no consensus in Legal Affairs.
I'll keep reading.. now I have some more tool to understand who I should
care to talk to and who to blame ;-)
Stefano
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
