Re: Evolution copyright assignment: Storm in a teacup

On Fri, Aug 06, 2004 at 10:57:29PM +0100, Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
> Novell's conditions are stated. They just aren't proper for a gnome
> module. They limit contribution to those who accept it.
The FSF limits contribution in a similar way. The conditions are different,
but not perfect either.

> >   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.
Over the other distributors of the same software?

> > 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?
It stands for a project that accepts contributions only from people
who give FSF the permission to distribute their work using whatever
license FSF chooses (under some quite severe constraints), knowing
that the FSF can choose licenses they don't like (as has happened
with the GFDL).

> No, I can't. Only with a fork and I doubt there are currently resources
> interested in maintaining a worthwile fork of Evolution.
The egcs fork looks like a relevant example for this.

> And lo' and behold, it even uses
> the GPL, how could that be? Simple: lawyer spells fooling the gullible
> masses.
I really haven't noticed any "Oh, I didn't know Ximian could ship
my code together with Connector until now" messages in the last

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