[rules-dev] [rules-users] copyright violation issue on Drools
Greg Barton
greg_barton at yahoo.com
Tue Aug 31 23:34:05 EDT 2010
If you allege illegal actions, you'd better be prepared to take that up in a court of law. No joke. If you think laws were broken, get yourself a lawyer and pursue the matter in the proper venue.
This is not the proper venue.
Now that you have alleged illegal behavior I will no longer discuss this with you.
--- On Tue, 8/31/10, 山本 裕介 <yamamoyu at gmail.com> wrote:
From: 山本 裕介 <yamamoyu at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [rules-dev] [rules-users] copyright violation issue on Drools
To: "Rules Dev List" <rules-dev at lists.jboss.org>
Date: Tuesday, August 31, 2010, 9:41 PM
At the time of submission, I was not aware that Red Hat is a company that commits illegal actions.And now I'm "explicitly stating" that I do not wish to include my work to the project.
On Sep 1, 2010, at 11:28 AM, Greg Barton wrote:
See http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
"5. Submission of Contributions. Unless You explicitly state otherwise, any Contribution intentionally submitted for inclusion in the Work by You to the Licensor shall be under the terms and conditions of this License, without any additional terms or conditions. Notwithstanding the above, nothing herein shall supersede or modify the terms of any separate license agreement you may have executed with Licensor regarding such Contributions."
Did you, at the time of submission, have a separate agreement? In writing? Signed by all parties?
GreG
On Aug 31, 2010, at 20:50, 山本 裕介 <yamamoyu at gmail.com> wrote:
At the time of your contributions to Drools and other projects you were a Red Hat employee. The Red Hat legal department has determined that it has the right to copy, modify and distribute your contributions under the Apache License version 2.0 and considers this matter closed. Richard didn't explain that. I didn't use Red Hat time to fix those bugs, translate message resources. I believe that "I am/was a Red Hat employee" doesn't matter. I'm not paid for the task.
"At the time the code was contributed in good faith under the Apache license, you cannot then decide at a later date to change your mind."My understanding is that people just do not want to undone
their contributions usually. That is how OSS works.Technically the copyright holder of translated message resources, program codes is the originator.I agreed to distribute my work under the ASL, but I didn't tell that I willingly give away the copyright to the project.Anybody who originates their work (i.e. the copyright holder) should be able to decide the license at a later date.
Richard, any comment?
On Sep 1, 2010, at 8:27 AM, Michael Neale wrote:
So is the reason that there is a dispute over another copyright holder? (ie these changes were copied in violation of that copyright in the first place) - or a case of changing-minds about rights to the commits of the original work? (if the latter then close the issue - nothing can or should be done - as it is a licencing issue then, not
a copyright issue, and as Mark says the licence doesn't permit that revoking).
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 7:56 AM, Mark Proctor <mproctor at codehaus.org> wrote:
Yusuke,
At the time of your
contributions to Drools and other projects you were a Red Hat
employee. The Red Hat legal department has determined that it has
the
right to copy, modify and distribute your contributions under the
Apache License version 2.0 and considers this matter closed. If
you
have any further need to discuss this please do so with Red Hat
legal, - you have their contact details.
Even if you were not
a Red Hat employee, which you were at the time, you cannot undo an
OSS code contribution, that is not how OSS licensing works. At the
time the code was contributed in good faith under the Apache
license,
you cannot then decide at a later date to change your mind. The
OSS
licenses, be it ASL or LGPL or GPL, are designed specifically to
provide certainty in that area. Without this level of certainty
end
user OSS adoption would be a minefield as every time developers
fall
out, which happens often, one could demand all their code be
removed
and this would impact everyone who has invested time installing
that
software in production systems.
Mark
On 31/08/2010 17:41, 山本 裕介 wrote:
I have consulted RH legal dept. only to get no
meaningful response.
I guess Edson is the one who commit most of these files.
The how and why they need to be uncommitted is attached to
the Jira issue.
Thanks,
Yusuke
On Sep 1, 2010, at 1:34 AM, Mauricio Salatino wrote:
Hi Yusuke, good question. I'm not
sure where is the right place, but you are only asking to
rollback your changes right?
who commit all your contributions to the jboss repo?
I also saw that you mention: "For several reasons, I
decided to withdraw those contributions introduced from my
spare time.
"
can you mention those reasons? so we, as community can
learn why you want to remove your contributions. I'm just
curious.
Greetings.
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:50 PM,
山本 裕介 <yamamoyu at gmail.com>
wrote:
Where is the appropriate forum for
copyright issues?
On Sep 1, 2010, at 12:45 AM, Greg Barton wrote:
> This is not the appropriate forum for
copyrighgt issues.
>
> GreG
>
> On Aug 31, 2010, at 9:40, 山本 裕介 <yamamoyu at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> There's a copyright violation issue on Drools
5.1 release.
> Please remove the changes listed in the
following issue.
> https://jira.jboss.org/browse/JBRULES-2660
>
> Thanks,
> Yusuke
>
_______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
>
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users at lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
--
- CTO @ http://www.plugtree.com
- MyJourney @ http://salaboy.wordpress.com
- Co-Founder @ http://www.jbug.com.ar
- Salatino "Salaboy" Mauricio -
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users at lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users at lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
_______________________________________________
rules-dev mailing list
rules-dev at lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
--
Michael D Neale
home: www.michaelneale.net
blog: michaelneale.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________
rules-dev mailing list
rules-dev at lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
_______________________________________________
rules-dev mailing list
rules-dev at lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
_______________________________________________
rules-dev mailing list
rules-dev at lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
_______________________________________________
rules-dev mailing list
rules-dev at lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/rules-dev/attachments/20100831/52d95218/attachment-0001.html
More information about the rules-dev
mailing list