1 |
On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 7:02 AM Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> >>>>> On Sat, 24 Nov 2018, Alec Warner wrote: |
4 |
> |
5 |
> > I think it is an entirely reasonable position to do the following: |
6 |
> > - Not accept the SEI notices because we do not understand the grounds on |
7 |
> > which they are added. |
8 |
> > - Ask SEI for a rationale for what the notices are meant to convey, so |
9 |
> we |
10 |
> > can decide if we can support whatever that use case is; maybe its |
11 |
> something |
12 |
> > we didn't consider in the GLEP. |
13 |
> |
14 |
> Hm, shall we make this an agenda item for the next Council meeting? |
15 |
> |
16 |
|
17 |
I think if you will do nothing, developers will continue to add SEI |
18 |
notices. If you don't want them to do that (and my understanding from |
19 |
talking to the council is many do not want the notices) then I believe |
20 |
action is necessary to block the notices[0]. I'm happy to add something to |
21 |
the agenda. |
22 |
|
23 |
|
24 |
> |
25 |
> > I don't think its reasonable to say they are mean shitheads; because the |
26 |
> > fact is we don't know what they want to accomplish with the notices. |
27 |
> > My concern is that they may later provide a reasonable use case for the |
28 |
> > notices and the council will just say 'well that use case is stupid |
29 |
> because |
30 |
> > Sony is stupid'; because that is the message many members of the council |
31 |
> > are currently communicating. Why would Sony even bother if the narrative |
32 |
> is |
33 |
> > the Council won't listen anyway? It looks like a waste of their time. |
34 |
> |
35 |
> In the first place, they should have raised their concerns while GLEP 76 |
36 |
> was in the making, not after it went through the approval process with |
37 |
> Council and Trustees. Our proposed policy was posted on the mailing list |
38 |
> for review, even with several iterations. Plus, they were happy with a |
39 |
> single line notice before, so not accepting it any longer looks like an |
40 |
> arbitrary move. |
41 |
> |
42 |
|
43 |
I agree that having the company participate earlier in the process would |
44 |
have improved things and this is something we should encourage. I'm not |
45 |
sure its necessary to present the GLEP as some kind of immutable entity |
46 |
though; we have a process to amend it and whatnot. However, I also want to |
47 |
give the GLEP authors a break (I know many of you have been working on this |
48 |
GLEP for more than a year) and this is why my intent is to put us in a |
49 |
position where its up to Sony (and other companies) to drive the changes |
50 |
they want. I think blocking the contributions is the stick to make that |
51 |
happen. |
52 |
|
53 |
-A |
54 |
|
55 |
[0] There was another argument raised that we could accept the ebuilds with |
56 |
the SEI Copyright notice at the top, then replace it later with "Gentoo |
57 |
Authors and others" once edited by a non SEI employee. This wasn't |
58 |
something I was keen on as a board member; but I think it comes back to |
59 |
"Why exactly does Sony want the notices and can we meet those obligations |
60 |
some other way." |
61 |
|
62 |
|
63 |
> > I think the above proposal puts the ball clearly in SEI's court; if they |
64 |
> > want the notices accepted they can provide a memo detailing why. If they |
65 |
> > don't care, they can drop the notices or stop committing. |
66 |
> |
67 |
+1 |
68 |
> |
69 |
> Ulrich |
70 |
> |