On Fri, 2004-08-06 at 14:36 -0700, Sriram Ramkrishna wrote: > 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? DUDE! 3 words: Go read it. > 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. Novell's conditions are stated. They just aren't proper for a gnome module. They limit contribution to those who accept it. > > > You seem to consider conslidation into one entity as a bad thing. > > No. Just a blind one. > > Thats you're opinion of course. There's no worse blind that he who doesn't not want to see. You still give more strength to faith than to the written words. > 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. Free Software is added value. > 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. So it's acceptable to have a gnome module some developpers can't even contribute? Just because it's really their business? You know what the G stands for, right? > 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. It has been duly dismissed by "trust on us" people. That much has been evident. Go read it. Don't trust me. Go read it. > > > 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? No, I can't. Only with a fork and I doubt there are currently resources interested in maintaining a worthwile fork of Evolution. > 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? You don't have to be disappointed. It didn't look like a question. What people see is different than what's really there. That's the magic of illusionists^W lawyers. > It seems more apparent to me that this is a personal issue > not one of general concern. It is a matter of general concern. Developers who don't want proprietary forks of their code are restricted from contribution to evolution and it's about to become a gnome module. And lo' and behold, it even uses the GPL, how could that be? Simple: lawyer spells fooling the gullible masses. > 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. It's not a matter of concerned individuals when it becomes a gnome module. It's a perversion. Free Software that only some developpers can contribute on gnome. > 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. Do you even think about what you write? Evolution is GPL'ed software. Neither GPL or Lesser GPL ever allow direct proprietary derivates. That's the whole purpose. The Lesser GPL is useful in that it allows Free Software that is incompatible with the GPL to use quasi-GPL'ed code. The cost of that is that proprietary software can link with it, but that's less serious than taking Free Software code and making _it_ proprietary. > 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." It's not dual license. Go read the document, please. > Arguing in general not to have the mechanism itself; which is what you > seem to be arguing is idiotic and is not worth continuing. I'm arguing of this particular case. Of course some points are not specific to it. Your insults are what's not worth the bytes they've been written into. Rui -- + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...? Please AVOID sending me WORD, EXCEL or POWERPOINT attachments. See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part