On 6/20/08, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
Unless someone proposes a policy, no policy will be agreed. The policy proposed is probably not going to be the one adopted but a strawman is a most useful catalyst. > >>>>>> (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... Because it's clearly marked NOTICE > >>>>> 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 ;-) Apache traditionally prefers social convention to formal policy. But IMHO Apache is now too large to act as a tribal unit and needs to move to a more formal structure. - Robert > > 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]
