On Jul 31, 2005, at 9:57 AM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
On 7/31/05, Geir Magnusson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
IMHO the whole concept of a default license for a mailing list is
problematic. it's hard to see how we could ensure that users have
given knowing consent.
Well, you won't be able to subscribe without seeing it,
would the legalize be in the subscription message?
That was my intent, yes.
(the one posted back to your email address)
and the monthly reminders should help. We should also put a
footer on each
message.
also need to be careful about moderation and think about mail-to-
news bridges.
Indeed.
with the ASL2, apache is covered through the license but AIUI this
does not extend to sublicensing?
Sure it does.
my mistake :)
. personally speaking, i do not accept
new files contributed through the lists which do not have the ASL2
boiler plate at the top. this way is common at apache.
We won't either, and we probably won't from the mailing list anyway -
we'd ask that this kind of contribution is made through JIRA.
<snip>
it is very
difficult to see how a user posting code with a specific license
to a
mailing list is given knowing consent for that license to be removed
and replaced by a different license by a third party. it all seems a
little fuzzy legally.
I'm not quite sure what you are talking about here.
i was thinking about new files with an ASL boiler plate at the top but
if these are going to accepted via JIRA then this isn't an issue.
Agreed. We're going to be very, very careful with incoming
contributions, because the mass of applicable code out there - all
the source to Sun's releases, for example - increases the risk that
we'll get something a copyright owner didn't actually contribute...
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
