Re: The copyright assignment debate.

On Sad, 2004-08-07 at 17:33, Miguel de Icaza wrote:
>     I agree that on the "abstract" he raises points of concern to him
> and others, but people seem to be treating us like if we were Evil
> itself, conveniently ignoring that if our corporation would to decide
> to do something stupid, the community still has the GPL version and
> they could fork at any point.

I'd like to see three specific questions answered

1.	Will Novell extend the patent bomb aspect of the license so that if
there isn't a free version then there isn't a proprietary version.
Without this it is possible for a ficticious future evil Novell to
hijack the contributions and kill the free version. The contract needs
to say something like

	"If through frustration of contract or any other cause
	 Novell is unable to continue to make available the GPL
	 version of the code the right to continue to make copies
	 of the code under other licensing arrangements also ceases."

2.	Will Novell add "in perpetuity" to the arrangement and also specific
"GPL and possibly other OSI licenses", since currently they could take
an Evolution contribution, relicense it back 4 clause BSD so its not GPL
compatible. While silly in itself the point of contract is to deal with
the "what happens if there is a later falling out"

3.	What will the foundation do if someone wishes to contribute something
to Evolution but declines to contribute it to Novell under the terms
they offer, and Evolution is part of the gnome desktop.

It isn't about the current Novell its about the long term future. One of
the reasons the GPL has worked so well is that it was written thinking
about the long term future. The assignment needs to do likewise.

In the meantime if 10% of the membership care to support a referendum
they can email me. I don't expect that many to care however but it would
clear the air on such an important precedent.


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