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(a)gmail.com&gt; 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(a)gmail.com&gt; 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(a)lists.jboss.org > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > rules-users mailing list > > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users > > > _______________________________________________ > rules-users mailing list > rules-users(a)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(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing listrules-users@lists.jboss.orghttps://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users _______________________________________________ rules-dev mailing list rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev

> > 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(a)codehaus.org > <mailto: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(a)gmail.com >>> <mailto: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(a)gmail.com >>> <mailto: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(a)lists.jboss.org >>> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org> >>> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > rules-users mailing list >>> > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org >>> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org> >>> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rules-users mailing list >>> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org >>> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org> >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> - CTO @ http://www.plugtree.com <http://www.plugtree.com/> >>> - MyJourney @ http://salaboy.wordpress.com >>> <http://salaboy.wordpress.com/> >>> - Co-Founder @ http://www.jbug.com.ar <http://www.jbug.com.ar/> >>> >>> - Salatino "Salaboy" Mauricio - >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rules-users mailing list >>> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org> >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rules-users mailing list >> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org> >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users > > > _______________________________________________ > rules-dev mailing list > rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-dev@lists.jboss.org> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev > > > > > -- > Michael D Neale > home: www.michaelneale.net <http://www.michaelneale.net/> > blog: michaelneale.blogspot.com <http://michaelneale.blogspot.com/> > _______________________________________________ > rules-dev mailing list > rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-dev@lists.jboss.org> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev _______________________________________________ rules-dev mailing list rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev

No that is not the way that OSS licensing works. You as the copyright holder may release future versions of code you hold the copyright for under different licenses. You cannot retro-actively change the license of something. Yeah, you're right on that part. Red Hat shouldn't be the copyright holder since it's done by my spare time. There's no term in the employment agreement that enables Red Hat to grab copyright ownership of employee's work done by unpaid hours. You are confusing copyright, go seek legal council - maybe Richard? And as the copyright holder, I do not wish to release my work under the ASL in the future. So please remove them from the trunk and do not include in the future versions. Thanks, Yusuke On Sep 1, 2010, at 4:22 PM, Mark Proctor wrote: On 01/09/2010 02:50, 山本 裕介 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. No that is not the way that OSS licensing works. You as the copyright holder may release future versions of code you hold the copyright for under different licenses. You cannot retro-actively change the license of something. Imagine I release a project under ASL, I get a million users. I then change my mind and revoke that and tell those million users, you can't use that under OSS anymore as i've changed my mind, if you want to use it pay me 10 billion dollars. You are confusing copyright and licensing, go seek legal council. Mark 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(a)codehaus.org&gt;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(a)gmail.com&gt; 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(a)gmail.com&gt; 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(a)lists.jboss.org >> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > rules-users mailing list >> > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org >> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rules-users mailing list >> rules-users(a)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(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users > > > > _______________________________________________ > rules-users mailing listrules-users@lists.jboss.orghttps://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users > > > > _______________________________________________ > rules-dev mailing list > rules-dev(a)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(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev _______________________________________________ rules-dev mailing listrules-dev@lists.jboss.orghttps://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev _______________________________________________ rules-dev mailing list rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev _______________________________________________ rules-dev mailing list rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev

Any further discussions should take place between legally qualified people.

On 01/09/2010 10:16, Yusuke Yamamoto wrote: > >> No that is not the way that OSS licensing works. You as the copyright holder may release future versions of code you hold the copyright for under different licenses. You cannot retro-actively change the license of something. > Yeah, you're right on that part. > > Red Hat shouldn't be the copyright holder since it's done by my spare time. There's no term in the employment agreement that enables Red Hat to grab copyright ownership of employee's work done by unpaid hours. > You are confusing copyright, go seek legal council - maybe Richard? > > And as the copyright holder, I do not wish to release my work under the ASL in the future. > So please remove them from the trunk and do not include in the future versions. Either you are incredibly stupid, or just playing dumb to annoy everyone and waste people's time. I don't think myself or others could have been any clearer. You cannot retroactive unlicense something. That code which you have contributed is under the terms of the ASL, FOREVER, you cannot change that. Under the terms of the ASL we can modify it and distribute and make derivitives from it in further versions FOREVER. I have made that clear, your code will not be removed, this matter is closed and you will achieve nothing more in discussing this further here. Any further discussions should take place between legally qualified people. Now grow up and stop embarassing yourself. Mark > > Thanks, > Yusuke > > On Sep 1, 2010, at 4:22 PM, Mark Proctor wrote: > >> On 01/09/2010 02:50, 山本 裕介 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. >> No that is not the way that OSS licensing works. You as the copyright holder may release future versions of code you hold the copyright for under different licenses. You cannot retro-actively change the license of something. >> >> Imagine I release a project under ASL, I get a million users. I then change my mind and revoke that and tell those million users, you can't use that under OSS anymore as i've changed my mind, if you want to use it pay me 10 billion dollars. >> >> You are confusing copyright and licensing, go seek legal council. >> >> Mark >>> >>> 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(a)codehaus.org&gt; 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(a)gmail.com&gt; 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(a)gmail.com&gt; 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(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>>> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>>> > rules-users mailing list >>>>>> > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>>> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> rules-users mailing list >>>>>> rules-users(a)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(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> rules-users mailing list >>>>> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> rules-dev mailing list >>>> rules-dev(a)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(a)lists.jboss.org >>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rules-dev mailing list >>> rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rules-dev mailing list >> rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev > > > _______________________________________________ > rules-dev mailing list > rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev _______________________________________________ rules-dev mailing list rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev

On 01/09/2010 11:01, Yusuke Yamamoto wrote: > > Now I'm not requesting to change the license retroactively. > It's okay to keep including my work in the released versions. > As the copyright holder, and the originator of the work, I'm just declaring that my work will no longer licensed under the ASL in the future versions. > AFAIK, the copyright holder can change the license in the future release. > Like oracle changed the license of WebLogic Server from BEA's license to OTN license. That is not how it works, end of discussion. Mark > >> Any further discussions should take place between legally qualified people. > Please have Richard respond to me faithfully. Otherwise I need to request here. > > Thanks, > Yusuke > > On Sep 1, 2010, at 6:40 PM, Mark Proctor wrote: > >> On 01/09/2010 10:16, Yusuke Yamamoto wrote: >>> >>>> No that is not the way that OSS licensing works. You as the copyright holder may release future versions of code you hold the copyright for under different licenses. You cannot retro-actively change the license of something. >>> Yeah, you're right on that part. >>> >>> Red Hat shouldn't be the copyright holder since it's done by my spare time. There's no term in the employment agreement that enables Red Hat to grab copyright ownership of employee's work done by unpaid hours. >>> You are confusing copyright, go seek legal council - maybe Richard? >>> >>> And as the copyright holder, I do not wish to release my work under the ASL in the future. >>> So please remove them from the trunk and do not include in the future versions. >> Either you are incredibly stupid, or just playing dumb to annoy everyone and waste people's time. I don't think myself or others could have been any clearer. You cannot retroactive unlicense something. That code which you have contributed is under the terms of the ASL, FOREVER, you cannot change that. Under the terms of the ASL we can modify it and distribute and make derivitives from it in further versions FOREVER. >> >> I have made that clear, your code will not be removed, this matter is closed and you will achieve nothing more in discussing this further here. Any further discussions should take place between legally qualified people. >> >> Now grow up and stop embarassing yourself. >> >> Mark >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Yusuke >>> >>> On Sep 1, 2010, at 4:22 PM, Mark Proctor wrote: >>> >>>> On 01/09/2010 02:50, 山本 裕介 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. >>>> No that is not the way that OSS licensing works. You as the copyright holder may release future versions of code you hold the copyright for under different licenses. You cannot retro-actively change the license of something. >>>> >>>> Imagine I release a project under ASL, I get a million users. I then change my mind and revoke that and tell those million users, you can't use that under OSS anymore as i've changed my mind, if you want to use it pay me 10 billion dollars. >>>> >>>> You are confusing copyright and licensing, go seek legal council. >>>> >>>> Mark >>>>> >>>>> 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(a)codehaus.org&gt; 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(a)gmail.com&gt; 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(a)gmail.com&gt; 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(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>>>>> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> > rules-users mailing list >>>>>>>> > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>>>>> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> rules-users mailing list >>>>>>>> rules-users(a)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(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> rules-users mailing list >>>>>>> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> rules-dev mailing list >>>>>> rules-dev(a)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(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> rules-dev mailing list >>>>> rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> rules-dev mailing list >>>> rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rules-dev mailing list >>> rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rules-dev mailing list >> rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev > > > _______________________________________________ > rules-dev mailing list > rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev _______________________________________________ rules-dev mailing list rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev

Wrong again: 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. On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 8:38 PM, Yusuke Yamamoto <yamamoyu(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: You want to include my works in the future release as derivative works, right? I understood. Please go ahead and keep redistributing the changes in *.java - which is declared to be released under the ASL. But, please remove the change in drools-guvnor/src/main/java/org/drools/guvnor/client/messages/Constants_ja_JP.properties from me. It's got no license declaration in the file. So I guess I have choice to decide the license of my work. And I decide not to deliver my changes under the ASL. Please understand that it is not permissible for me that Red Hat takes advantage of my work. It may sound unconstructive. Yes, it is unconstructive. But this is what my doctor is suggesting. Things need to get straighten. Cheers, Yusuke - the troll. On Sep 1, 2010, at 7:08 PM, Mark Proctor wrote: > On 01/09/2010 11:01, Yusuke Yamamoto wrote: >> Now I'm not requesting to change the license retroactively. >> It's okay to keep including my work in the released versions. >> As the copyright holder, and the originator of the work, I'm just declaring that my work will no longer licensed under the ASL in the future versions. >> AFAIK, the copyright holder can change the license in the future release. >> Like oracle changed the license of WebLogic Server from BEA's license to OTN license. > That is not how it works, end of discussion. > > Mark >> >>> Any further discussions should take place between legally qualified people. >> Please have Richard respond to me faithfully. Otherwise I need to request here. >> >> Thanks, >> Yusuke >> >> On Sep 1, 2010, at 6:40 PM, Mark Proctor wrote: >> >>> On 01/09/2010 10:16, Yusuke Yamamoto wrote: >>>>> No that is not the way that OSS licensing works. You as the copyright holder may release future versions of code you hold the copyright for under different licenses. You cannot retro-actively change the license of something. >>>> Yeah, you're right on that part. >>>> >>>> Red Hat shouldn't be the copyright holder since it's done by my spare time. There's no term in the employment agreement that enables Red Hat to grab copyright ownership of employee's work done by unpaid hours. >>>> You are confusing copyright, go seek legal council - maybe Richard? >>>> >>>> And as the copyright holder, I do not wish to release my work under the ASL in the future. >>>> So please remove them from the trunk and do not include in the future versions. >>> Either you are incredibly stupid, or just playing dumb to annoy everyone and waste people's time. I don't think myself or others could have been any clearer. You cannot retroactive unlicense something. That code which you have contributed is under the terms of the ASL, FOREVER, you cannot change that. Under the terms of the ASL we can modify it and distribute and make derivitives from it in further versions FOREVER. >>> >>> I have made that clear, your code will not be removed, this matter is closed and you will achieve nothing more in discussing this further here. Any further discussions should take place between legally qualified people. >>> >>> Now grow up and stop embarassing yourself. >>> >>> Mark >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Yusuke >>>> >>>> On Sep 1, 2010, at 4:22 PM, Mark Proctor wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 01/09/2010 02:50, 山本 裕介 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. >>>>> No that is not the way that OSS licensing works. You as the copyright holder may release future versions of code you hold the copyright for under different licenses. You cannot retro-actively change the license of something. >>>>> >>>>> Imagine I release a project under ASL, I get a million users. I then change my mind and revoke that and tell those million users, you can't use that under OSS anymore as i've changed my mind, if you want to use it pay me 10 billion dollars. >>>>> >>>>> You are confusing copyright and licensing, go seek legal council. >>>>> >>>>> Mark >>>>>> >>>>>> 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(a)codehaus.org&gt; 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(a)gmail.com&gt; 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(a)gmail.com&gt; 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(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>>>>>> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> > rules-users mailing list >>>>>>>>> > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>>>>>> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> rules-users mailing list >>>>>>>>> rules-users(a)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(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> rules-users mailing list >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> rules-dev mailing list >>>>>>> rules-dev(a)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(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> rules-dev mailing list >>>>>> >>>>>> rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> rules-dev mailing list >>>>> rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> rules-dev mailing list >>>> >>>> rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rules-dev mailing list >>> rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rules-dev mailing list >> >> rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev > > _______________________________________________ > rules-dev mailing list > rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev _______________________________________________ rules-dev mailing list rules-dev(a)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(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev