| 1 |
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> The key words are "serious" or "contact from the copyright holder." |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Sorry - revise that a little: |
| 5 |
1. Serious and they don't get a timely response from the maintainer |
| 6 |
(or licenses@g.o). |
| 7 |
or |
| 8 |
2. Contact from the copyright holder. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
The intent isn't to make anybody wait for permission to fix licensing |
| 11 |
issues, but rather to get the maintainer involved so that we make the |
| 12 |
best decision possible, while ensuring that we aren't subject to legal |
| 13 |
risk or unnecessarily hard feelings if a maintainer isn't available |
| 14 |
for serious issues. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
The Trustees don't need to be intimately involved in every issue, but |
| 17 |
everybody does need to know that we're around if needed. If we're |
| 18 |
actually contacted by a copyright holder I suggested copying us since |
| 19 |
I think that raises the bar legally - whether the note comes from a |
| 20 |
lawyer or not we're essentially on notice and a timely response would |
| 21 |
be expected by a court. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Rich |
Archives