Re: helix setup tools?

[Wolfgang Sourdeau <wolfgang iNsu com>]

> The reason for asking for copyright assignments in Helix Setup Tools
> is that it would enable Helix to relicense the code of Helix Setup
> Tools in the future.  

This is what people have concerns with, I think.

> 
> Our plans so far are only to possibly MPL pieces of the code (or use
> other licenses, or cross-license the code with other projects) if
> required.

Now that Mozilla is dual-licensed, this shouldn't happen, isn't it ?

Maybe you could suggest people not willing to assign their copyright
to Helix Code to rather assign it to the FSF, so as to solve at least
the issue where you have to sue someone. As a member of the board of
directors of the FSF, wouldn't it be easier for you to act in the name
of both organizations ? I maybe wrong here, but this seems to be a
good solution for me. It also solves the case of Helix Code being
bought by some less-ethical corporation, in which case the FSF could
claim property of at least a part of the code and prevent this code to
be proprietarized.

> Although we could have chosen to assign copyright to the FSF, we have
> contributed most of the code, and we as Helix would like to keep the
> copyright for our contributions (Evolution, Helix Setup Tools, Red
> Carpet and a few other bits) as it is part of our intellectual
> property.

In my opinion, "intellectual property" doesn't exist in anyway with
free software except:
a) that it is important to give credit where credit is due;
b) that legally, "intellectual property" is a concept that exist;

> 
> Now, Helix IP is licensed under the terms of the GNU GPL or the GNU
> LGPL.  If Helix were to change the license to something that would go
> against the spirit of the community, a fork of the code base could
> always be possible.  A fork at the last stage where all the code is
> released under the terms of the GNU GPL/GNU LGPL.

Yes, but meanwhile you still would legally have the right to make
proprietary code off a work someone else wrote and wanted to be GPL'd
(because he wanted it to remain free).

> In a world in which Free Software companies are working towards
> proving that free software based companies can exist, we want our
> brand to be recognized for their contributions to the free software
> community.  Crediting contributions has always been my personal policy
> when it comes to free software.  This is what I did with every piece
> of free software I was involved with. 

But that way you don't solve the problem where people tend to not
trust something that was not written by a company. It's finally like
the "Open Source vs. Free Software debate" (where "free" is "the word
to be avoided"). I do agree however that this is a matter where
strategy has to be taken into account. But soon or later we definitely
have to point out that our work is the opus of the free software
community rather than products written by companies.

It's time to prove the world that we can live without corporations.

> Best wishes,
> Miguel.


Wolfgang