On Sat, 2004-08-07 at 01:14 +0200, Miloslav Trmac wrote: > 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. They are not perfect because they exist. They exist because they have to uphold the freedom of users. They promise to do so. What does Novell promise? The it wants to be able to incorporate on other programs under a proprietary license. > 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). The GFDL issue can be attributed to people who have comprehension problems. Like those who believe these Ximian/Novell lawyer lies in the copyright assignment. > > 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. Actually, no. Most evolution developers, specially those who have a strong understanding over the design of the software, are Novell employees. 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