[rules-dev] [rules-users] copyright violation issue on Drools
Mark Proctor
mproctor at codehaus.org
Wed Sep 1 05:40:30 EDT 2010
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 at codehaus.org
>>>> <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>>>>>> <mailto: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
>>>>>> <mailto:rules-users at lists.jboss.org>
>>>>>> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>>>> > rules-users mailing list
>>>>>> > rules-users at lists.jboss.org
>>>>>> <mailto:rules-users at lists.jboss.org>
>>>>>> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> rules-users mailing list
>>>>>> rules-users at lists.jboss.org
>>>>>> <mailto:rules-users at 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 at lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users at lists.jboss.org>
>>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> rules-users mailing list
>>>>> rules-users at lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users at lists.jboss.org>
>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> rules-dev mailing list
>>>> rules-dev at lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-dev at 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 at lists.jboss.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/rules-dev/attachments/20100901/9604d5d2/attachment-0001.html
More information about the rules-dev
mailing list