Re: PROPOSAL: Evolution for GNOME 2.8

[Rob Adams <readams readams net>]

This has been discussed fairly extensively on foundation-list.  Here's
the thread:
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2004-February/msg00056.html

Here's the current policy on copyright and licensing draft:
HTML: http://readams.net/copyright/gnome-copyright/ 
PDF:  http://readams.net/copyright/gnome-copyright.pdf
XML:  http://readams.net/copyright/gnome-copyright.xml

Though nothing has been done on this in a while.  If we want to continue
this discussion, it should be moved to foundation-list.

-Rob

On Thu, 2004-06-03 at 13:21 -0400, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote: 
> regarding (c) assignment... I think the bigger issue here is that GNOME
> in general has been pretty lax about it and that "we" should probably
> start REQUIRING (c) assignment to the FSF (or wherever) for all code
> that gets put into GNOME.
> 
> On Thu, 2004-06-03 at 19:13 +0200, Paolo Borelli wrote:
> > On Mon, 2004-05-31 at 22:17 -0400, JP Rosevear wrote:
> > > The Evolution team would like to formally propose Evolution 2.0
> > > (http://www.gnome.org/projects/evolution) for inclusion in the GNOME 2.8
> > > Desktop release.
> > 
> > (I know I'm risking to be flamed. Badly. But people on irc suggested it
> > could be a point worth raising on the mailing list, so I'll take the
> > risk)
> > 
> > 
> > Isn't anyone concerned by the fact that Evo would be the only module
> > included which requires copyright assignment?
> 
> They all should require (c) assignment. the fact that some don't is a
> "bug" and I feel it needs to be resolved to protect us from legal issues
> down the road.
> 
> > 
> > 
> > Note: I love Evoultion and I'd love to see it in the desktop release,
> > I'm just raising the question.
> > 
> > Note 2: please don't start a flamewar about about copyright
> > assignemnt/GPL/FSF/GNOME/KDE/Whatever. Ximian/Novell has all its rights
> > to require copyright assignment and Evolution *is* GPL, the only thing I
> > am wondering is how this interacts with the inclusion in the desktop
> > release.
> > 
> > 
> > My primary concern with this is that some people (me included, but other
> > on irc agreed) which just want to submit a couple of patches to scratch
> > their itches, often cannot be bothered to do the required paperwork even
> > if they would have no problem with the copyright assignment itself.
> 
> While I agree that this can be annoying, once you sign the papers - you
> never have to do it again. Also, I think ALL modules should require
> copyright assignment to the FSF, Red Hat, etc (whoever owns the module).
> I think for the most opart this will end up being the FSF, but there may
> be a few modules that will belong to someone else.
> 
> I do think, tho, that it would be nice if all the modules were (c) FSF
> so that once someone signed the paperwork, they wouldn't have to do it
> again for each module they touched.
> 
> Jeff
> 
> -- 
> Jeffrey Stedfast
> Evolution Hacker - Novell, Inc.
> fejj ximian com  - www.novell.com
> _______________________________________________
> desktop-devel-list mailing list
> desktop-devel-list gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list