Re: Evolution copyright assignment: Storm in a teacup

[Alan Cox <alan lxorguk ukuu org uk>]

On Gwe, 2004-08-06 at 19:28, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> That means that external contributions WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE UNDER A FREE
> LICENSE. It doesn't say "in perpetuity", which is interesting, and I'd have
> to ask a lawyer what that implies.

It means that Novell should add "in perpetuity". If you have to ask a
lawyer what any part of a contract means then the terms are not clear
enough. I'm sure Novell can fix that - Nat ?

Novell should also add language IMHO to make it clear that if the open
source one becomes unavailable for any reason including frustration of
contract (ie "third" party patent lawsuit) then the proprietary use
likewise is revoked. This is the "patent bomb" protection the GPL has
and which the Novell arrangement probably unintentionally defuses.

> If any individual has a moral objection to giving Novell the right to make
> the software available under non-Free licenses then that person is FREE TO
> NOT SIGN THE AGREEMENT. End of story. At no time will contributions be
> unavailable under a Free license, Novell has specifically called that out in
> their agreement. This is not complicated at all.

One simple question. If the Novell people refuse a contribution because
the author refuses to sign the copyright over will the code still go
into Evolution in Gnome-cvs ?

The foundation charter says

"GNOME is part of the GNU project and supports the goals of the GNU
project as defined by the Free Software Foundation. Free software
licensing has always been a mainstay of GNOME, and we must ensure that
this tradition continues. GNOME will include only Free software."

> I would like to propose these resolutions to the Foundation Board for
> discussion at the next Board meeting (which will be next week).

The gnome foundation receives funds from Novell, I would move that the
foundation administration is therefore an inappropriate body to make
such resolutions. This should go to a vote of the entire membership.
Only then will you actually settle the issue cleanly. If it is a storm
in a teacup the vote will reflect that.

The charter permits any member to request a referendum and providing 10%
of the membership agree it should happen then there will be one.
Alternatively the board can recognize its a divisive issue and do it
anyway, which seems the better approach

	-	Accept Evolution
	-	Accept Evolution but fork if Novell refuse an
		unsigned-over patch
	-	Reject Evolution for now


Alan