Yes, it's already in progress. No joke.

On Sep 1, 2010, at 12:34 PM, Greg Barton wrote:

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@gmail.com> wrote: From: 山本 裕介 <yamamoyu@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [rules-dev] [rules-users] copyright violation issue on Drools To: "Rules Dev List" <rules-dev@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@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@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@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@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@lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > rules-users mailing list > rules-users@lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users@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@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users _______________________________________________ rules-dev mailing list rules-dev@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@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev _______________________________________________ rules-dev mailing list rules-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev _______________________________________________ rules-dev mailing list rules-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev -----Inline Attachment Follows----- _______________________________________________ rules-dev mailing list rules-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev

_______________________________________________
rules-dev mailing list
rules-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev

_______________________________________________
rules-dev mailing list
rules-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev