2015-08-18 20:03 GMT+02:00 Luís Pereira <luis.artur.pere...@gmail.com>:
> After some reading and talking, to people that knows a lot more than > myself, I arrived to the following conclusions: > * Using the LXQt contributors way implies that we will have no means > to enforce it. LXQt contributors is not an legal entity. If it were a > legal entity, CLA signing would be needed. > * Who is entitled to do licence changes in the LXQt contributors model > ? Anyone ? Can someone make a couple of contributions and then fork > and change the licence ? > > Paulo and Palo are Ok with the proposed change. I'm not. > Sorry, but I will continue putting myself as the copyright holder. I'm > not happy with the perspective of someone that didn't do squat being > able to relicence the code. > > I agree with Luís. I hold the copyright to what I write, and the term 'Copyright LXQt Team' is, IMHO, meaningless. That would require a formal transfer of copyright from me to said team, ie. a contributor agreement or something like that, an I'm not signing those. I share my code with others via the *license*. So, like Luís, I put myself as copyright holder in what I write. br. Chr. > On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 10:37 AM, Luís Pereira > <luis.artur.pere...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I'm sympathetic to this effort. Worst than the model being broken, > > it's copyright law and specially It's practice that's broken. > > IADNAL also. In our circumstances, I don't know of any solution that > > achieve the desired goals and provides an valid copyright. IADNAL > > > > I'm reading this to educate myself: > > http://opensource.org/faq > > > http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2012/ManagingCopyrightInformation.html > > http://producingoss.com > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Jerome Leclanche <jer...@leclan.ch> > wrote: > >> Thanks for the feedback guys. > >> > >> Regarding the "LXQt contributors" not being a legal entity: I hear the > >> concern. The goal is to word it in such a way that the copyright is > >> broadly applied to whoever contributed to the project. I think my > >> current proposal covers this but I'm open to suggestions. > >> > >> The way I see it, the current model is broken either way. Anybody can > >> just come in and modify the copyright header, add their names to it > >> after fixing a typo or some such. And other devs who work on the other > >> 99.9% of the code won't necessarily bother to add their name. > >> > >> I'm going off my limited knowledge of copyright law here, and IADNAL > >> :) I'd love to hear other proposals, as long as they follow the main > >> goals: > >> > >> - Shrink the headers as much as possible > >> - Standardize them > >> - Remove the need to ever change them > >> > >> J. Leclanche > > > > > > > > -- > > Luís Pereira > > > > -- > Luís Pereira > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Lxde-list mailing list > Lxde-list@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lxde-list >
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Lxde-list mailing list Lxde-list@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lxde-list
