Re: Xaraya2x actions to come

[email protected] wrote:
> Those revisions were made a few months ago when the subject of 
> copyright came up during a review of the code. The line you are 
> referring to reflected the copyright of the DDF, as you well know.
Which review are you referring to? Why is this review taken on core 2x 
only? Why not on the complete xaraya repository location itself, but in 
your location?  Would it not make sense to include me in the reviewing 
as sole DDF director left?  Or at least notify me?

> The status of the DDF is highly questionable. I have tried various 
> times to ascertain what happened to it without success. 
Not with me, apart from the casual discussions over a year ago. I would 
be the one to ask, no?

> My understanding, which may be imperfect, is that no dues for upkeep 
> have been paid and that you are the only remaining Board Member. Is a 
> Board of Directors with one person even legal?
Yes, that is legal. I assessed that from the very first day the 
situation arose (when Chris ('miko'))
A read of the bylaws will show you that too. Am I that hard to reach?
 
Any fees the DDF is obliged to pay have been paid over the years, fees 
for upkeep are not applicable as far as I am aware (I am listed as 
administrative office for a while now, so they should be able to reach 
me if needed, others have)

> The removal of the copyright line (which btw was replaced by a 
> placeholder, in case - against all odds - there should actually be a 
> case to put it back in the future), was done prior to the current 
> project revival with no particular reference to Xaraya.
Exactly, which is the main point of my worries. It's not yours to 
remove. If you sincerely think it is, we should talk.

> However, I believe it is the right decision. It is quite pointless, 
> and even a bit misleading to have a copyright reference to a defunct 
> organization in the codebase, especially when we are trying to attract 
> new developers.
Be that all as it may, and I even agree up until a point, it is a 
different point than the one I am making.  The copyright is assigned to 
that organisation.  Pending the DDF discussion which is ongoing as far 
as I am aware (there is even a spokesperson assigned by the PMC) and a 
plan for continuation, I expect that copyright for all JCA people to 
remain in tact (everywhere, not only in the xaraya repository)

> You will recall that prior to the copyright message in question there 
> was a line attributing copyright to the "Xaraya Development Group" for 
> several years until it was realized the copyright was invalid as such 
> a legal entity did not exist. There was no problem with removing that. 
> I argue that the case of the DDF is essentially the same.
I disagree with that last bit, but that also is beside my point.

> I would like to put the burden of proof on the DDF. If someone can 
> show that the organization is a legally existing entity in good 
> standing then we can discuss putting the copyright line back in. It 
> certainly doesn't appear to meet any reasonable criteria as a going 
> concern as far as I can see. As the single remaining representative of 
> the DDF, I believe that would fall to you.
We can have the question of validity out of the way easily:   
http://tinyurl.com/cgu57m

(those are search results of the NY state formal register, if you want 
to reproduce this result:
- 
http://appsext8.dos.state.ny.us/corp_public/corpsearch.entity_search_entry )

I specifically stayed on as (more or less passive) director to keep the 
copyright entity legally valid until a better solution was decided upon. 
There has been some communication in the past with the division of 
corporatians to enquire abouth minimal life support.

> Lastly, the PMC was informed of this situation specifically by myself, 
> and it was decided to have it reviewed before any official release. 
> Your pointing it out has simply come a bit earlier than anticipated.
I dont quite understand what you are saying here. What did you inform 
the PMC about?

> Quite the contrary: if the project wants to move forward it needs to 
> free itself from some of the useless baggage from the past. Nothing 
> has been done about the DDF situation for years. This is something. If 
> you disagree please make a case for why that line should remain.
Again, my point is not so much that the line as such should remain, It 
is not your decision alone to change it without prior discussion, nor 
mine. I may even agree with *changing* the copyright attribution in the 
light of the DDF status quo (impractical to say the least).  At the very 
least I would have expected a communication going out to all the Join 
Copyright Holders explaining the intent to change the copyright sharing 
arrangement.

marcel

-- 
Marcel van der Boom -- http://hsdev.com/mvdb.vcf
HS-Development BV   -- http://www.hsdev.com
So! webapplicaties  -- http://make-it-so.info
Cobra build site    -- http://cobra.mrblog.nl