Re: Evolution copyright assignment: Storm in a teacup

[Sriram Ramkrishna <sri aracnet com>]

Okay, this is my last message on this thread.

On Fri, Aug 06, 2004 at 10:10:05PM +0100, Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
> > Sure.  But you can negiotate that youre code can only go into the
> > GPL'd version or it can't be made proprietary.  You have that power
> > becuase it's you're code.  If entity decides they don't want it they are
> > free to re-write it and take yours out.
> 
> No. You can't do that. It's no longer your code. You waived that right
> by signing the copyright assignment.

What happened to the legally enforceable contract that was part of your
agreement?  Dust in the wind?

> > But the agreement between developer and entity says 'I agree that my code
> > can be licensed GPL'd and proprietary but it cannot just be proprietary'.
> > Wuld that satisify you?  Especially if the agreement is enforceable by
> > law?
> 
> Because that's not the agreement. The agreement would be satisfied with
> one release in Free Software and all others as proprietary.

If the general agreement does not fit well with you, you are free to
make one special with Novell.  You're not constrained by the agreement
given to you.  For instance, in a job interview you have the option in
your hiring contract to cross out parts you don't agree with before
signing.  It's done a lot here.  You're not helpless, if they want you're
code you're really the one in charge.


> > You seem to consider conslidation into one entity as a bad thing.
> 
> No. Just a blind one.

Thats you're opinion of course.

> > The FSF wants to do the same thing here.
> 
> No. The FSF promises to maintain the freedom. Novell openly declares it
> wants to be able to make proprietary code out of Free Software effort (a
> very recent post of Miguel de Icaza explicitly says this about Mono).

Yes, and thats true because if they want to add some proprietary 
features cannot include those features without breaking agreements
with the company who owns it.  Novell already have opened sourced items
they control.  Novell has an obligation to provide value add to their
customers. Thats part of their responsiblities to those who invest
in them.

If you don't want to, you don't have to give up your source code it's a 
simple as that.  But for those who don't share ideology then thats
really their business.

> >   They would wish us to
> > assign copyright to the FSF.  Are you willing to come to the 
> > <some country> to defend your code/copyright against all legal 
> > attacks?  Conslidation helps a project be able to defend their code
> > base against attacks.
> 
> I have no problem if it is done in an honest way. This isn't honest.
> Many are fooled by the carefull writing of this agreement, at least that
> much is, by now, quite evident to me.

You've raised your objections and it has been duly noted.  Again if
those individuals have concerns about this they can talk to an
FSF lawyer.

> > You also believe that once it's out of your hands you're screwed.
> > Thats not necessarily true.  What if the FSF were to come up with
> > a boiler plate agreement that are looked over by it's lawyers would
> > you use that agreement when assigning code over?
> 
> That's what the FSF does.

Well then, you can always use that agreement can't you?

I'm disapointed that you did not answer my last paragraph about what
the situation was.  Was that more or less what you were thinking?

It seems more apparent to me that this is a personal issue
not one of  general concern.  I think we can all agree that you
personally do not like this particular agreement.  But it's up to
the concerned individuals whether they want to assign copyright
or not.  Any further discussion will not move the debate further.
You're the only person arguing against this.

We live in a world where proprietary exists and sometimes we have to
make allowances.  Thats why we have licenses like the LGPL to help
include those types of software.  

In the end, "it's up to each individual developer to decide what they
want to do.  If they don't mind their code being dual licensed then there
is no issue.  If you have an issue, you're free not to assign it."

Arguing in general not to have the mechanism itself; which is what you
seem to be arguing is idiotic and is not worth continuing.

sri


sri