Re: Evolution copyright assignment: Storm in a teacup

[Miguel de Icaza <miguel ximian com>]

Hello,

>     Funny, Richard Stallman endorsed a way in which software is made
>     available under the GPL but also offering a proprietary version of it
>     for those who do not need/can get the GPL edition.  
> 
> The suggestion I made is to release the program under the GPL, and
> sell alternative licenses for the same code to clients that want to
> link the code with non-free software.
> 
> I have suggested this business model to several companies that were
> hesitating about making their software free.  And several of them did
> so with this idea.  One special characteristic of this model is that
> all the code is always available as free software.
> 
> I don't see any problem if Novell follows this same business model for
> Evolution.  If it does, I would also encourage developers to
> cooperate, such as by assigning their copyrights.  However, the
> contract wording that has been cited here doesn't say that Novell will
> follow this model.

Well, that was the intention behind the contract, I can not argue about
the individual legal merits of the document, but with the input from
this mail and the other one, we can certainly fix that.

My recollection (and Nat could correct me if wrong) is that if we were
forbidden to release the code under the GPL because of a patent
restriction the commitment was to *still* publish the code under an some
free software approved license.   

Miguel.