[Development] qt-jambi-interest at qt.nokia.com

Darryl Miles darryl-mailinglists at netbauds.net
Tue Dec 4 02:07:48 CET 2012

Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On segunda-feira, 3 de dezembro de 2012 16.47.09, Darryl Miles wrote:
>> If the Qt Jambi mailing list moves to be hosted @list.qt-project.org
>> what kind of assurances might there be that this same scenario doesn't
>> happen again ?  This seems a pertinent question to ask, particularly if
>> some of the same hands are managing the new location as did the old.
> There isn't. In fact, there's a very likely guarantee that this problem will
> happen again if the list needs to be moved.
> Subscriber lists are under strict privacy rules and the Qt Project will not be
> allowed to share those lists with anyone else, unless we added a checkbox for
> people to select whether they'd like their addresses to be shared. This
> checkbox needs to be unchecked by default according to European (digital)
> privacy guidelines.

I understand this point in respect to the old list 
qt-jambi-interest at qt-project.org.

I understand in respect of users signing up to a new list.  So the 
question I need to decide is which legal entity is the user who is 
subscribing providing the information to (this becomes the entity with 
ultimate legal responsibility for the "personal" data consisting of 
their email address and optionally their name).

Then after that the terms under which the subscriber is signing up, i.e. 
it can be clarified that they are also consenting to allow the entity 
with ultimate legal responsibility to delegate the operational matter of 
the list to another legal entity at their discretion.  Furthermore that 
due to the nature of what a mailing-list is they are also consenting to 
having the details collected during signup to be distributed to the 
others on the list as well as their respective email system providers 
used for transit of the message.

There will of course be provisions for double opt-in to join and to 
opt-out at any time.

However what is unclear is the provision for the right to have all 
records and details of a person deleted from the system if that person 
demands that action.  This would rule out email archives that did not 
perform an expunge of history, replies and quotations, unless of course 
those archives were operated and run from a legal entity outside the 
scope of this requirement.  Maybe just have another legal entity that is 
merely a subscriber to the list manage the archives and maybe clarify 
further in the terms that again due to the nature of what a mailing-list 
is the legal entity with ultimate responsibility (for the inputted 
"personal" data) has no way to expunge or control the republishing of 
data in sympathy with the users usage of the list.

Checkboxes are a minor matter so that counts as a solution, i.e. the 
value proposition of subscribing up to the list (to be able to address 
it with an email) far outweighs not signing up and not being able to ask 
a question.

>> About that legal at qt-project.org is there a direct dial number for that
>> department ?  How exactly does the department work.
> There's one person from Digia that has been assigned as the legal contact for
> the project. Why do you need to call this person? Is this person not
> responding to emails?

So far my recent attempt make contact via email to legal at qt-project.org 
has gone unreplied and unacknowledged.  Which is why I'd like to know 
the name of the contact and/or place a call to the department.  (wasn't 
this explained in the original email)

One of the questions posed in my 22-Oct-2012 email did ask about 
continued mailing-list robot hosted at lists.qt.nokia.com.

>>> I also think we should migrate the jambi repositories from gitorious over
>>> to qt-project.org.
>> If this is a serious suggestion you should definitely get
>> legal at qt-project.org to get in contact so this can be discussed and
>> worked on so it can be setup as a goal we can work towards, because
>> right now this is not a goal due to lack of dialog; as potentially
>> blocking matters exist that need to be resolved.
> Why does the legal contact need to be involved with this?

So there is an awareness of what the Qt Jambi project is to both parties 
and how the Qt Jambi project operates.  For example contributions have 
not been governed by any CLA for some time.

There is the aspect that Nokia still owns and retain the qtjambi.org 
domain name and it does not seem to have been part of any asset transfer 
this causes a problem in the very naming of the project as Java naming 
is largely based on a namespace model tied back to DNS.
So the subject of renaming the project to side-step this issue has come 
up and there does not seem to be any major objection to a rename from 
those folks involved in the day-to-day active management of the Qt Jambi 

There is also a matter of trademark questions concerning Qt Jambi (it 
has been written in information/documentation that some aspect of the 
name may have a trademark claim).  It could of course also have been 
advance thinking or a misunderstanding or typographical error.

There is a pending/schedule change to the Copyright plates to better 
explain and describe the nature of the project as being a derivative and 
fork of the original Trolltech work that has selected to retain GPL/LGPL 
in source code and publish LGPL only binaries.

There is also the angle on continuing to use trolltech.com references 
within the code base, I see there is a QTBUG about stopping doing that 
in Qt, is there a legal basis this needs to be done ?

Aspects of closing off and moving to emeritus status a number of dormant 
gitorious Qt Jambi project admin accounts. This would also lead into the 
cleaning up of the other gitorious matters.

I think these are the main points at the top of the pile.


More information about the Development mailing list