It was said earlier that Novell would consult its lawyers and get a statement on the matter, I think any further actions should wait for that. Ideas are always welcome, though, I believe. It's also important to keep things in perspective here: We don't have too much to say against Ximian/Novell, since they have contributed a lot more to Free Software than anyone ever contributed to Evolution or other modules. I'm not supporting the copyright transfers as a whole, but I do believe that it's their right to decide and any positive outcome (whatever that might be) for the GNOME community on the matter is to be accepted with joy, and not a "Well, finally, about damn time". Are we in a position where we can demand further development from Novell? I don't think so. But we are in a position where we can do whatever we like with the corporate modules. Both Novell and Gnome have proven to be dynamic and flexible, so I trust there will be a nice resolution on the matter, given that the discussion gets a few days to rest so people can consult the needed people, and propose solutions - if a different solution is wanted by any part. Alan mentioned some stuff on patent bombing and new issues to the case that I don't quite get yet, maybe someone could fill out on this (objectively, please). Best regards, Christoffer lør, 07,.08.2004 kl. 18.24 -0400, skrev C. Scott Ananian: > Having read all the posts on this topic with interest, let me suggest the > following compromise: > a) patches to evolution *do* require a copyright assignment, but > b) the assignment is to the GNOME foundation (alternatively to FSF) > > The implicit understanding is that the GNOME foundation may offer a > non-exclusive royalty-free etc license of its contributions back to Novell > for its proprietary purposes so long as this advances GNOME's own > interests (ie as long as Novell is contributing to the evolution code > back, which remains free, etc). If this agreement has to be made explicit > the foundation would need to think hard about the exact criteria used. > This may not be necessary: while Novell is contributing to the codebase, > the foundation has a strong incentive to continue to license back its > contributions in order not to have to maintain a fork. Similarly, Novell > has a strong incentive to keep its contributions Free, for fear of losing > access to the (hopefully growing) outside contributions. > > It's not perfect, but it's possibly a way to a) decentralize control over > the source (David Sugar's post started me thinking about this) while > b) allowing Novell/Ximian to achieve its own business objectives -- so > long as these continue to advance the cause of Free Software! > > Some people will undoubtedly still refuse to contribute, because they > object to Novell's ability to offer proprietary versions of the source > code. Novell similarly may object to losing total control of the product: > the GNOME foundation will have a de facto veto over Novell's proprietary > plans, so long as GNOME's contributions grow large enough. > > Hopefully, however, both sides will see the benefits as well. > --scott > > TASS BATF payment colonel Hawk Sabana Seca CIA Kojarena class struggle > Register to vote! http://www.yourvotematters.org/VerifiedVoting > ( http://cscott.net/ ) > _______________________________________________ > foundation-list mailing list > foundation-list gnome org > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Dette er en digitalt signert meldingsdel