In CO10, what does "according to this model" mean? *CO10*
The project has a well-known homepage that points to all the information > required to operate according to this model. > If it means the Apache model, do most project home pages currently point to information about Apache operations? -- Lefty Leverenz On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 8:51 AM, Benson Margulies <bimargul...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 11:46 AM, Rob Vesse <rve...@dotnetrdf.org> wrote: > > LC50: > > > > I think the LC50 is actually correct but could perhaps be phrased better > > > > My understanding was that the ASF owns the copyright for the collective > > work of the project I.e. releases. As Benson notes contributors retain > > copyright on their contributions but grant the ASF a perpetual license to > > their contributions > > I think that the wording should be expanded to mention both aspects. > > > > > QU30: > > > > Agreed, some projects may not do anything that is attack prone or are > > likely only to be run such that any "security" is provided by whatever > > runtime they use and the security of that runtime is well beyond the > > purview of the project. > > > > Consensus building: > > > > Should there be a CS60 about the rare need for private discussions > > > > CS60: > > > > In rare situations (typically security, brand enforcement, legal and > > personnel discussions) the project may need to first reach consensus in > > private in which case the project should use their official private > > communications channel such that these rare private discussions are > > privately archived. The outcomes of such consensus should where possible > > be discussed in public as soon as it is appropriate to do so. > > > > That isn't great wording but hopefully you get what I am trying to convey > > - projects should rarely discuss in private and any discussions should > > become public as soon as it is possible to do so > > > > Rob > > > > On 14/01/2015 15:33, "Benson Margulies" <bimargul...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >>CD40: perhaps change 'previous version' to 'released version' > >> > >>CD50: the committer is not necessarily the author; someone might read > >>this and not understand what it implies for committers committing > >>contributions via all of the channels allowed for by the AL. One patch > >>would be 'immediate provenance', another would be some more lengthier > >>language about the process. > >> > >>LC20: do we need to explain what we mean by 'dependencies'? This has > >>been a point of friction. Expand or footnote to the distinctions > >>between essential and optional? > >> > >>LC50: the footnote seems wrong; the ASF does not own copyright, > >>rather, the author retains, and grants the license. > >> > >>RE40: do you want to add an explicit statement that legal > >>responsibility falls upon the head of the person who happened to run > >>the build? > >> > >>QU20: Maybe we need to expands on 'secure'? Maybe this is too strong? > >>What's wrong with building a product that is explicitly not intended > >>for use attack-prone environments. > >> > >>QU40: Not all communities might agree. Some communities might see > >>themselves as building fast-moving products. Some communities may lack > >>the level of volunteer effort required to satisfy this. Does this make > >>them immature, or just a group of volunteers with different > >>priorities? > >> > >>IN10: I fear that a more detailed definition of independence is going > >>to be called for here to avoid controversy. > > > > > > > > >
