>Louis Suarez-Potts wrote: > >> "Give back"? "Credit" is more what comes to mind. > >"back" was a typo, sorry. > >In any event, from section 3.3 I got that CVS would do for tracking >changes, but I didn't get the message that it constitutes "credit". I >can't see how that could be. If I give you a file, and you put it in >CVS, how does that give me credit?
No, it doesn't give credit. It gives the history of the changes. > >> Your company would be credited, as I wrote before. I'd be happy to credit the >> original author. Credit, to restate, is not advertising. > >Please state exactly in which way you plan to give credit. I don't have exact ideas at this stage. As I had suggested to Justin, I'd be happy to have a mention in this project, of the ways in which DDGTS and you and other authors have contributed. I just don't want that on the actual templates we are handing out to businesses, where I just want "OOo". DDGTS can of course send out its own forms, etc., and use whatever advertising it wants. [snip] >> A great concession from Sun? That is an odd interpretation and not one >> that is meant. > >But that is the message you get accross. You just latch onto the point >that I get to keep copyright over my own work, as if that had been into >question and should be glad. How would you feel if I suggested you make >me co-owner of your car (ie. one you bought yourself), and then insist >that it's okay because you'd still be own too. That argument wouldn't >make you want to give me co-ownership of your car. You'd probably also >think I was a very silly person for making the suggestion. But that's a poor analogy. The bizarre point of joint copyright over a duplicable object is that it effectively twins it. You can't do that (yet) with a car. So, the example is absurd. [snip] > >> From our perspective the issue is not the JCA. I have not encountered, >> save for yourself, any programmer who would refuse to donate code >> *because* of the JCA. > >Consider the posibility that those who might exist will not spend >nearly as much time as I have trying to explain this very simple >concept. Or that they might be put-off as soon as they read the >licensing FAQ. Or that you might not know very many outside >programmers. That is, if your use OOo itself as your pool, obviously >you'll have a biased sample. In any event, I believe I'm not the only >one, and I have given a basis for that opinion. But briefly (1) I know >several other people (though only of them can program) that feel >similarly about the JCA, (2) I follow FOSS forums and I see a deep >mistrust of Sun, (3) Most FOSS projects choose the one license that >does not permit companies from making propietary products (GPL). You >may recall that I suggested that a way to make the JCA more appealing >could be to have an agreement from Sun that the contribution would >/only/ be released under [insert license]. In short, from your perspective, the problem is Sun. BTW, I'm in favor of working to ensure that what I see as an implicit covenant between the sponsoring body and the community it relies on works... for both. > >Cheers, >Daniel. > Best, louis --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
