Priority of cleaning up unclear legal status

Posted Jan 18, 2013 15:29 UTC (Fri) by rcweir (guest, #48888)
In reply to: Priority of cleaning up unclear legal status by mjw
Parent article: A discordant symphony

You can cover your eyes and ears and have as much uncertainty as you want to. It sure is easier to complain than writing code, isn't it?

But if you wanted certainty, then you would write to Apache on their legal-discuss list, ask questions about the SGA license, read the README that is posted for the Symphony code and see that this is actually quite simple.

The license is in the SGA:

http://www.apache.org/licenses/cla-corporate.txt

The README tells what files are covered:

https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/symphony/trun...

If you are not willing to accept that, then you are like the Obama-doubting "Birthers" who harbor paranoid delusions about his birth certificate unless they can waterboard the doctor who delivered him.

Hack or complain. Pick one.

Priority of cleaning up unclear legal status

Posted Jan 18, 2013 15:37 UTC (Fri) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (17 responses)

The README refers to a specific SGA that is available to ASF members but not the general public. This information may not be relevant to determining the licensing state of the files - on the other hand, it might be. We don't know and we have no way of knowing unless further information is provided. You've offered to see if you can obtain the list of covered files, and if it's possible for you to do that then it would remove that uncertainty.

Priority of cleaning up unclear legal status

Posted Jan 18, 2013 15:44 UTC (Fri) by rcweir (guest, #48888) [Link] (16 responses)

The SGA is a standard form. You can see the form here:

http://www.apache.org/licenses/cla-corporate.txt

Again, you seem to be harboring paranoia about what might be written on the reverse of Obama's birth certificate.

Priority of cleaning up unclear legal status

Posted Jan 18, 2013 15:48 UTC (Fri) by micka (subscriber, #38720) [Link] (12 responses)

What's this thing on Obama birth certificate you keep talking about ? Is he a vampire, born in the 18th century ?

Priority of cleaning up unclear legal status

Posted Jan 18, 2013 15:59 UTC (Fri) by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784) [Link] (11 responses)

Rob appears to be trying to imply that Matthew is as paranoid as the conspiracy theorists known as "birthers", who think Barack Obama was not born a US citizen (despite his birth having been validly registered in the city of Honolulu, Hawaii, USA in 1961, which is after Hawaii's admission to statehood) and so is ineligible for the Presidency.

Tacky, Rob. Real tacky.

Priority of cleaning up unclear legal status

Posted Jan 18, 2013 16:16 UTC (Fri) by rcweir (guest, #48888) [Link] (9 responses)

Not at all. I don't for a second remotely think that Matt believes what he is writing. He is playing Devil's Advocate.

On the other hand, there are some who actually have these delusions that there are secret exceptions and reservations ,and that this code was designed to tempt,lure and deceive LibreOffice, only to pounce on them later.

Priority of cleaning up unclear legal status

Posted Jan 18, 2013 16:47 UTC (Fri) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]

? I've spent far too much of my life having licensing discussions with lawyers. I don't believe that there's any hidden agenda or desire to mislead people and then sudden unexpected copyright suit, but the absence of clear and unambiguous licensing information does effectively prevent anyone who has a vaguely functional legal department from being able to touch the code. Nobody benefits from that.

Priority of cleaning up unclear legal status

Posted Jan 18, 2013 21:02 UTC (Fri) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198) [Link] (7 responses)

I think that's a little uncharitable, I don't know Matt personally but I have been reading LWN for a long time and have never known him to act in bad faith, or advance positions just to be a troll. I don't think anyone here has any delusions like you are describing, maybe that's from a different mailing list. Certainly some individual developers like to shoot their mouths off and say all sorts of crazy things.

Actually I believe you are both acting in good faith to clear up the self-evident confusion and that you two will have it sorted out shortly.

Priority of cleaning up unclear legal status

Posted Jan 18, 2013 21:16 UTC (Fri) by rcweir (guest, #48888) [Link] (6 responses)

I was not speaking of Matt. I was speaking of the post from the LibreOffice Marketing Director, linked to in the main article. This comment thread is about the article, isn't it?

Priority of cleaning up unclear legal status

Posted Jan 19, 2013 16:24 UTC (Sat) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] (5 responses)

I was not speaking of Matt. I was speaking of the post from the LibreOffice Marketing Director

Really? Then why, two posts further up the chain, did you say

Not at all. I don't for a second remotely think that Matt believes what he is writing. He is playing Devil's Advocate.

You clearly were speaking of Matthew, but perhaps you forgot this in a period of less than five hours.

Priority of cleaning up unclear legal status

Posted Jan 19, 2013 23:56 UTC (Sat) by rcweir (guest, #48888) [Link] (4 responses)

So when Matt suggests submitting "racist screeds" to Apache you think he is not playing Devil's Advocate? If so, I think you are the one insulting Matt. Or maybe you just need a bigger dictionary.

-Rob

Priority of cleaning up unclear legal status

Posted Jan 20, 2013 0:00 UTC (Sun) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (3 responses)

I don't think playing Devil's Advocate means what you think it means.

Priority of cleaning up unclear legal status

Posted Jan 20, 2013 0:10 UTC (Sun) by rcweir (guest, #48888) [Link] (2 responses)

"In common parlance, a devil's advocate is someone who, given a certain argument, takes a position he or she does not necessarily agree with, for the sake of debate. In taking this position, the individual taking on the devil's advocate role seeks to engage others in an argumentative discussion process. The purpose of such process is typically to test the quality of the original argument and identify weaknesses in its structure, and to use such information to either improve or abandon the original, opposing position."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil%27s_advocate

You took the position of someone submitting a racist screen to Apache, a position you presumably do not agree with, for sake of debate, to test the quality of the original argument, etc.

-Rob

Priority of cleaning up unclear legal status

Posted Jan 20, 2013 0:22 UTC (Sun) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (1 responses)

It's my genuinely held belief that if I were to submit racist screeds via an Apache SGA that they would not be accepted, not a belief that I'm adopting for argument's sake. If you want to stick a label on it, it's argument ad absurdum.

Priority of cleaning up unclear legal status

Posted Jan 20, 2013 0:29 UTC (Sun) by rcweir (guest, #48888) [Link]

Well, whatever you want to call it, I was saying that you did not believe in submitting racist screeds to Apache, that you were merely using that as a rhetorical device. I apologize if you thought that was an insult.

-Rob

Priority of cleaning up unclear legal status

Posted Jan 19, 2013 16:22 UTC (Sat) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

We should be surprised? Everything Rob's said so far has been a mass of obstructionism, bafflegab, and tendentious argument, beginning with criticising others but then refusing to explain his position when pressed (since all that should go to Apache lists, not here, how very convenient).

The imputations of bad faith to Matthew (without any evidence) are a nice touch too. I have no *idea* how Matthew has kept his cool through all this, but if working on AOO means working with Rob I can see why LibreOffice is taking off.

Priority of cleaning up unclear legal status

Posted Jan 18, 2013 15:49 UTC (Fri) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (2 responses)

"Please refer to the list contained in the Software Grant and Corporate Contributor License Agreement for more information."

What extra information does that list contain? If the information contained within it isn't relevant, why am I being asked to refer to it?

Priority of cleaning up unclear legal status

Posted Jan 18, 2013 16:05 UTC (Fri) by rcweir (guest, #48888) [Link] (1 responses)

You're not. missing anything. I've now removed that line to avoid the confusion that it was obviously causing.

Now would you agree that the status is clear, based on the README and the SGA license?

Priority of cleaning up unclear legal status

Posted Jan 18, 2013 16:21 UTC (Fri) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]

I'd suggest two further changes:

1) Add an explicit link to http://www.apache.org/licenses/cla-corporate.txt and the revision number in the preamble, just to avoid any potential doubts about whether "a Software Grant and Corporate Contributor License Agreement ("SGA ")" refers to the standard Apache one or a different one negotiated by IBM and the Foundation (in much the same way as "released under the terms of the GNU GPL" is ambiguous as to which version it refers to).

2) Add "These materials are contributed under the SGA" to point (2)

I think that those would make the intended copyright status completely unambiguous, but I think the change you've already made goes a long way.