incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Norbert Thiebaud <>
Subject Re: Legal question about (re)licensing
Date Wed, 02 May 2012 16:09:31 GMT
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 6:52 AM, Rob Weir <> wrote:
> On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 10:42 PM, Norbert Thiebaud <> wrote:
> <snip>
>> PS: the specific svn revisions here are not the central point, the
>> point is the lack of any discussion/scrutiny on any of these followed
>> by the self-fulfilling prophecy: "To be released the code must be
>> clean. Releasing imply a detailed IP review (RAT was run), so surely
>> if the release was approved by a vote then the release _is_ IP clean,
>> and therefore if it is released then it is clean".
>> Rob's 'holier than thou' public attitude on the topic remind me of the
>> old saying:  "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
> Your argument is a form of the logical fallacy known as the "fallacy
> of the false dilemma", also called "false either/or" or
> "black-and-white thinking".  You argue that either the code review
> must reach some absolute level of complete perfection or that it is no
> better than doing no review at all.
> Let's recast that argument.

No need to make your straw-man version even more potent.
that is _not_ my argument, that is yours...

My argument is : You tout the quality of your IP review process,
smearing and denigrating the IP process of others, while giving only
lip service to the said process.
This is not your first rodeo
iow, you knowingly approved a release that you claim you "know for a
fact" has 'patent' infringement.

> Similarly, the Apache emphasis on IP review is not less important
> because of possible human error.

And error is presumably accidental, you patent threat above was
everything but. The willful ignorance of such allegations of a PPMC
member, by the PPMC is not a 'human error'.

>  In fact the multiple stages of
> review and approval are designed to give maximal opportunity to
> identify and fix such issues.  This has worked very well for this
> project, and the reviews we've done have found and addressed many
> issues.   It is far better than doing nothing.   In the end, I'll take
> diligence over negligence any day.

And yet

- You don't follow you're own guideline to 'veto' commit...
- Multiple error in attribution went in without anyone raising a question
- Multiple patches went in, unchallenged, with no clear connection to
- You claimed details and specific knowledge of patent infringement in
the code based, yet approved the release of such.

And despite all that you still tout your 'superior' IP cleanliness...
Just writing it in big letter on the Box does not make it true...


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message