Vic Cekvenich wrote:
Jim Barnett wrote:
In general... the goal of O/S AFAIK "it's our sofware, and you can't take it away from us once you give it to us" and that is what the license should do.Also, having owners assign copyrights to ASF would probably be a mistake. First, ASF really doesn't have the resources or (I would guess) the interest in enforcing copyrights assigned to it when a third party uses the contributed work outside the scope of the Apache license. Second, so long as the author/contributor retains ownership of the copyright, the author also retains some degree of protection against prospective shifts in Apache's out-bound license terms. In other words if tomorrow Apache decided that the FreeBSD-style license model was passé and that the GPL model is preferable, as assignee-owner Apache could make that shift, even if the original contributor of the work specifically relied upon Apache's commitment to the FreeBSD-style model instead of a GPL model when making the contribution. If the original author retains ownership of the contribution, and were Apache to radically alter its license model in a way undesirable to the contributor, the contributo
r could simply offer its original contribution via another open source organization and/or license model more consistent with it's perceived strategic interests.
I am very curious as to what others think about this issue, and am available for e-mail or phone consultation. Thank you for allowing me to offer my $0.02.
Regards,
James Barnett
Senior Counsel
BEA Systems, Inc.
408-570-8442
ASF should own it and if they chose to *not protect* it (goal is to share) or change the license, great. Else it's a slipery slope and resource intensive.
.V
--
Please post on Rich Internet Applications User Interface (RiA/SoA) <http://www.portalvu.com>
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
