Re: Evolution copyright assignment: Storm in a teacup

On Fri, 2004-08-06 at 22:06 +0000, Carlos Morgado wrote:
> So Rui is sort-of-right, he's just picking on the wrong point or believing  
> it's blidingly obvious the "or" between Works and Program makes it possible  
> for a non free version for Evo to be released as long as the original patch  
> remains unchanged.

It's not an or that's the problem. It's:

 A. B.

Two sentences. Neither of them acceptable on a GPL project.

A ~= We'll make it available under a DFSG (or whatever the current
wording is) license
B ~= Besides that, we'll be able to, at our sole discretion, license it
in another kind of license.

B is totally legal, after all, they _are_ the new copyright holders.
However, you're giving them copyrights without anything in return, like
the reason why the GPL exists: to keep software Free.

The collection of all the rights without any promise to maintain the
terms of the GPL is for all pratical effects a circunvention of the GPL.

Such a copyright assignment contract shouldn't be admissible in any
gnome module (much less so blindly defended by any GF board member).


+ 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.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]