RE : Re: RE : Re: RE : Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document Foundation
Davide, Sure. I mean that development patterns varies on the tasks at hand and their difficulty. So explaining what devs might change or not change due to the absence of a CA is misleading. A CA is a barrier to contribution, not a code development pattern. Best, Charles. Le 17 nov. 2010, 10:53 AM, "Davide Dozza" a écrit : Hi Charles, Charles-H. Schulz ha scritto: > Andrea, > > I disagree with your analysis, because it fails to include the development > specific... What do you mean with "development specifics"? Maybe after we have clearly defined them we can deal with. Davide -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.orgPosting guidelines: htt... Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly ar... -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: RE : Re: RE : Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document Foundation
Hi Charles, Charles-H. Schulz ha scritto: > Andrea, > > I disagree with your analysis, because it fails to include the development > specifics. What do you mean with "development specifics"? Maybe after we have clearly defined them we can deal with. Davide -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
RE : Re: RE : Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document Foundation
Andrea, I disagree with your analysis, because it fails to include the development specifics. But anyway, we'll see. :-) Charles. Le 17 nov. 2010, 12:29 AM, "Andrea Pescetti" a écrit : On 07/11/2010 Charles-H. Schulz wrote: > The last minutes of the SC meeting explains that we will re... ...which means that at that point the only feasible solution will be to ask for agreement/assignment on a voluntary basis, or even reject completely this possibility. But, at the same time, waiting a few months will allow to finally discriminate whether the 50 or so new developers joined primarily because the required technical skills were lowered or because the copyright assignment was removed; if the removal of a copyright assignment was the main reason, then I see all of them moving to more substantial contributions by that time (and LibreOffice progressing dramatically!). Best regards, Andrea. -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundati... -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: RE : Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document Foundation
On 07/11/2010 Charles-H. Schulz wrote: > The last minutes of the SC meeting explains that we will revisit the issue > once the Foundation is properly established. ...which means that at that point the only feasible solution will be to ask for agreement/assignment on a voluntary basis, or even reject completely this possibility. But, at the same time, waiting a few months will allow to finally discriminate whether the 50 or so new developers joined primarily because the required technical skills were lowered or because the copyright assignment was removed; if the removal of a copyright assignment was the main reason, then I see all of them moving to more substantial contributions by that time (and LibreOffice progressing dramatically!). Best regards, Andrea. -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document Foundation
2010/11/7 Michael Meeks : > Hi Roberto, Hi Michael, > On Sat, 2010-11-06 at 14:27 +0100, Roberto Resoli wrote: >> The crucial point is not JCA/CLA ecc. but what we expect from the Foundation >> and what we want the governance of the Foundation should be in the future. > > Well, these are interesting topics of course; but somehow they have > been intertwined in people's minds. > >> It's not a black box, we can form it in the way we want, but it should have a >> motivation for existing,other than being a mere repository of code. I >> don't feel the need for a foundation that does nothing really useful. > > I agree having a useful foundation is better than a non-useful one :-) > I'm convinced though that usefulness is an orthogonal problem to the > need (or otherwise) for copyright ownership. I agree that copyright ownership is not a necessary condition to have an useful foundation, but in my opinion these are not orthogonal items at all; the foundation can be much more effective in its action, because owning copyright permits much more effective action. For example: if someone steals me the code I contributed, it would be very difficult to excercise my rights, particularly if the stealing subject is a big Company; the situation is even much more difficult if the copyright is dispersed. In "why assign" page form fsf[1] I read: "... And despite the broad right of distribution conveyed by the GPL, enforcement of copyright is generally not possible for distributors: only the copyright holder or someone having assignment of the copyright can enforce the license . If there are multiple authors of a copyrighted work, successful enforcement depends on having the cooperation of all authors. " >> It's not warm, it's not cosy, but in my opinion could be more useful. >> It could represent me in a much more effective way. A legal entity can >> receive >> money, can hire lawyers, can conduct marketing campaigns, > > A foundation that owns no code can represent you, inasmuch as it > commands your trust and loyalty. Similarly there is no need to own > anything in order to receive money, hire lawyers, conduct marketing > campaigns: all of which can be good things of course. What I said about "being an useful foundation" i referred to the fact that, after a month, TDF still doesn't have a legal status, and I don't see any notice of an action in this direction (please point me to related information if I'm wrong). Without a legal status, i think TDF cannot do almost anything effective, including receiving donations and possibly talking to governement entities. This is also a prerequisite for eventually (even as an option, as someone is suggesting here) receive Copyright Assignments. >> I think LibO is too important to let things going in a random way. >> Random meaning that possibly some big contributors will dominate >> the project, being the only having the adequate "contribution power" > > The choice to not aggregate ownership is a deliberate one, and is by no > means a random choice, it follows the most outstandingly successful Free > Software projects of our time. I understand that this is a deliberate action of course, and please, don't think that I want coinvince you or any other that my thoughts about CA are better; my intention is only to present some aspects that may have been shadowed by the need to attract contributions. >> As I told other times, giving power to FSF or Mozilla instead of let >> TDF taking it, is not the best thing to do. > > Nonsense; the 'TDF' still has the power to re-license the code all it > likes - vested in the consent of its members. Mmm; my worries are very practical; as I said, Mozilla relicencing took 4 years and a half; what time would take to relicense about ten times that code? > The fact that we also > trust the FSF and the Mozilla guys to do the right thing in future is > purely an added bonus. Yes, I meant only that others (i trust them too, but this is not the point) and not the foundation we are establishing *now*, will have that power. It sounds a bit strange to me. > Of course - that power is vested in the people that really wrote the > code, documentation, translation etc. which is IMHO where it belongs. The power is there in any case, but dispersed and not enforceable, without a strong (copyright owning) Foundation. My last words about this, I definitely like more coding that talking about that. Long live to LibO! (under a strong TDF, I hope) bye, rob > ATB, > > Michael. [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
RE : Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document Foundation
Gianluca, The last minutes of the SC meeting explains that we will revisit the issue once the Foundation is properly established. Charles. Le 7 nov. 2010, 2:37 PM, "Gianluca Turconi" a écrit : Il 07/11/2010 4.20, Michael Meeks ha scritto: > > The choice to not aggregate ownership is a deliberate one, and is by no > means a random choice... Please, let me know if this decision was already taken by the founders' group and if it's definitive. If the answer is yes to both questions, we can close this thread and go ahead. There isn't even any need for discussing about a compromise. Regards, -- Gianluca Turconi -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.orgPosting guidelines: htt... -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document Foundation
Il 07/11/2010 4.20, Michael Meeks ha scritto: The choice to not aggregate ownership is a deliberate one, and is by no means a random choice Please, let me know if this decision was already taken by the founders' group and if it's definitive. If the answer is yes to both questions, we can close this thread and go ahead. There isn't even any need for discussing about a compromise. Regards, -- Gianluca Turconi -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document Foundation
Il 06/11/2010 22.25, Cor Nouws ha scritto: [...] However, all that doesn't mean it might not be good for TDF to offer developers the choice of copyright assignment without requiring it; something that would also be good to offer the estates of deceased developers when those situations arrive. But that is all - an option should the developer with to exercise it. Having read all fine explanations, (strong) opinions, I think this is simply the best we can do. So +1 from my side, +1 too. It's clear what positions people have about this matter, and it's rather difficult they will change their mind. Politely asking the contributors whether they want to assign their copyright to the foundation or not, it's a needed compromise. I hope nobody has something to object about an action *voluntarily* done by the contributors, though it may involve some minor cost. Regards, -- Gianluca Turconi -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document Foundation
Hi Roberto, On Sat, 2010-11-06 at 14:27 +0100, Roberto Resoli wrote: > The crucial point is not JCA/CLA ecc. but what we expect from the Foundation > and what we want the governance of the Foundation should be in the future. Well, these are interesting topics of course; but somehow they have been intertwined in people's minds. > It's not a black box, we can form it in the way we want, but it should have a > motivation for existing,other than being a mere repository of code. I > don't feel the need for a foundation that does nothing really useful. I agree having a useful foundation is better than a non-useful one :-) I'm convinced though that usefulness is an orthogonal problem to the need (or otherwise) for copyright ownership. > It's not warm, it's not cosy, but in my opinion could be more useful. > It could represent me in a much more effective way. A legal entity can receive > money, can hire lawyers, can conduct marketing campaigns, A foundation that owns no code can represent you, inasmuch as it commands your trust and loyalty. Similarly there is no need to own anything in order to receive money, hire lawyers, conduct marketing campaigns: all of which can be good things of course. > I think LibO is too important to let things going in a random way. > Random meaning that possibly some big contributors will dominate > the project, being the only having the adequate "contribution power" The choice to not aggregate ownership is a deliberate one, and is by no means a random choice, it follows the most outstandingly successful Free Software projects of our time. > As I told other times, giving power to FSF or Mozilla instead of let > TDF taking it, is not the best thing to do. Nonsense; the 'TDF' still has the power to re-license the code all it likes - vested in the consent of its members. The fact that we also trust the FSF and the Mozilla guys to do the right thing in future is purely an added bonus. Of course - that power is vested in the people that really wrote the code, documentation, translation etc. which is IMHO where it belongs. ATB, Michael. -- michael.me...@novell.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document Foundation
Hi all, BRM wrote (03-11-10 14:41) So let's get back to the real issue - the _only_ reason for copyright assignment is to help the organizers of LibreOffice (TDF) with keeping the license current - e.g. moving from LGPLv3 to LGPLv4, etc. If the TDF SC and LibreOffice developers are not concerned about that issue (and from what I have seen in this thread the guidance is already to license as LGPLv3+ for new contributions and there is nothing we, TDF/etc, can do about Sun/Oracle owned code), then there is no reason for copyright assignment, pure and simple. Any kind of other fear mongering to get copyright assignment put in place is unjustified. However, all that doesn't mean it might not be good for TDF to offer developers the choice of copyright assignment without requiring it; something that would also be good to offer the estates of deceased developers when those situations arrive. But that is all - an option should the developer with to exercise it. Having read all fine explanations, (strong) opinions, I think this is simply the best we can do. So +1 from my side, Cor -- - giving openoffice.org its foundation :: The Document Foundation - -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document Foundation
On Sat, 06 Nov 2010 12:04:36 -0600, Ian wrote: On Sat, 2010-11-06 at 18:55 +0100, Gianluca Turconi wrote: Il 06/11/2010 17.50, Robert Holtzman ha scritto: > That's fine as long as those hands remain benevolent. Not always a good > assumption. If you think so, no foundation is needed at all. -- Gianluca Turconi To me, the main reason to have a Foundation is to have a central place to gather and administer resources. Democratic or benevolent dictatorship? That is an entirely different debate. The goal of doing this is to generate income for the foundation, so having an audit on the administration doesn't really acomplish anything. Just show distrust to generate income. At the same time, even if such distrust exist, it doesnt really matter as long as it shows (with actions more than number) that is reaching it's goal. In other words, you dont care if a government has corruption inside it's administration as long as you see performing well. Doing constant audits doesn't really matter if there is no 'jobs' or whatever is needed in the country. You can apply the same thing to any other service public or private. Liability is a factor of life. -- Alexandro Colorado OOoES A.C - http://oooes.org GPG: 68D072E6 -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document Foundation
On Sat, 2010-11-06 at 18:55 +0100, Gianluca Turconi wrote: > Il 06/11/2010 17.50, Robert Holtzman ha scritto: > > That's fine as long as those hands remain benevolent. Not always a good > > assumption. > > If you think so, no foundation is needed at all. > -- > Gianluca Turconi To me, the main reason to have a Foundation is to have a central place to gather and administer resources. Democratic or benevolent dictatorship? That is an entirely different debate. -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications A new approach to assessment for learning www.theINGOTs.org - 01827 305940 You have received this email from the following company: The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales. -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document Foundation
Il 06/11/2010 17.50, Robert Holtzman ha scritto: That's fine as long as those hands remain benevolent. Not always a good assumption. If you think so, no foundation is needed at all. -- Gianluca Turconi -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document Foundation
On Sat, Nov 06, 2010 at 03:32:32PM +0100, Gianluca Turconi wrote: > > And I'm, for the life of me, now and forever, more in favor of a > vertical foundation: more powers, in good hands. That's fine as long as those hands remain benevolent. Not always a good assumption. -- Bob Holtzman Key ID: 8D549279 "If you think you're getting free lunch, check the price of the beer" -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document Foundation
Il 06/11/2010 14.27, Roberto Resoli ha scritto: As I told other times, giving power to FSF or Mozilla instead of let TDF taking it, is not the best thing to do. Amen! :) Here: http://www.letturefantastiche.com/external/vertical_and_horizontal_foundations.odg I've expressed in graphical form the difference between a "vertical foundation" and a "horizontal foundation" as alternatives. The fundamental differences are self-evident, IMO. And I'm, for the life of me, now and forever, more in favor of a vertical foundation: more powers, in good hands. Regards, -- Gianluca Turconi -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document Foundation
2010/11/5, Caolán McNamara : > Wasn't subscribed to this list earlier, so I'll just hijack the first > mail from the copyright thread to reply to to state my own opinion on > copyright assignments. > > So, I'm not a huge fan of them No one (no authors or developer, at least) can be. > and believe they put contributors off. > None of the various projects I've contributed to outside of > OpenOffice.org had one, and had I been an individual developer, as > opposed to an employee whose company approved a block assignment thing > on our behalf, I almost certainly wouldn't have bothered to go through > the process personally on OOos behalf either. They definitely put me > off. Ok, you had (eventually) to assign to a private Company in the past, now the potential entity is a Foundation, representing all contributors. It's not the same thing. The crucial point is not JCA/CLA ecc. but what we expect from the Foundation and what we want the governance of the Foundation should be in the future. It's not a black box, we can form it in the way we want, but it should have a motivation for existing,other than being a mere repository of code. I don't feel the need for a foundation that does nothing really useful. > IMO, they take a lot of the fun out of it, and erect a barrier on two > fronts, the first is the practical hassle of signing it, faxing it, > sometimes even buying stamps and posting it, clicking through whatever. > Ugh, its so often not worth the pain. The other barrier is the > difference it makes to the perception of the body that wants it. Logging > a patch, implementing features, etc to help out fellow developers and > users "just like me" is one thing, but when presented with a copyright > assignment then you're pushed out into a different world where there's > some legal entity wants to own or co-own your work, and that's not a > warm and cosy place. It's not warm, it's not cosy, but in my opinion could be more useful. It could represent me in a much more effective way. A legal entity can receive money, can hire lawyers, can conduct marketing campaigns, > Who exactly are they, what do they want to do with it, why do they need > it. What are their motivations and can I trust them ?. If enough people > of one company or another get onto the board will they sell out and > relicense everything to some third party. The governance and the rules of a strong foundation are up to us, we can build as we want, because WE will build the Foundation. > Do I have to read all their > bylaws to see if that's not going to happen. Do I trust them. > > As far as I know, GNOME, KDE, Linux kernel and the GIMP along with > masses of the little projects that makes everything work, typically get > along fine without copyright assignment, though some have quirks like > optional copyright assignment. Apache, FSF on the other side. The kernel is simply too big because one single entity could hope to dominate it, and for historical reasons is not even thinkable to govern it in a different manner. I think LibO is too important to let things going in a random way. Random meaning that possibly some big contributors will dominate the project, being the only having the adequate "contribution power" > There is the advantage of being able to move up to a newer version of > the LGPL of course, but large chunks of the code is locked in as LGPLv3 > anyway, so using a newer version of the LGPL is only possible if Oracle > relicenses their existing contribution under that, the current policy of > placing new work under a GPLv3+/LGPLv3+/MPLv1.1 should cover situations > like that if they arise. As I told other times, giving power to FSF or Mozilla instead of let TDF taking it, is not the best thing to do. bye, rob > C. > > > -- > Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org > Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html > Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ > *** All posts to this list are publicly archived *** > > -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document Foundation
On Fri, 2010-11-05 at 21:03 +, Caolán McNamara wrote: > As far as I know, GNOME, KDE, Linux kernel and the GIMP along with > masses of the little projects that makes everything work, typically get > along fine without copyright assignment, though some have quirks like > optional copyright assignment. A basic principle is don't put in any barriers to take up unless they are really, really, really essential. That principle applies to software to end-users AND to developers AND to other volunteers. Even getting access to contribute to the OOo web site was a complicated pain and I gave up on it about 5 or 6 years ago. If we want community volunteers make it as easy as possible to participate, if we want a lot of users of the software make it easy for them to take it up - eg get it on as many future devices as the default as possible. -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications A new approach to assessment for learning www.theINGOTs.org - 01827 305940 You have received this email from the following company: The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales. -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document Foundation
Wasn't subscribed to this list earlier, so I'll just hijack the first mail from the copyright thread to reply to to state my own opinion on copyright assignments. So, I'm not a huge fan of them and believe they put contributors off. None of the various projects I've contributed to outside of OpenOffice.org had one, and had I been an individual developer, as opposed to an employee whose company approved a block assignment thing on our behalf, I almost certainly wouldn't have bothered to go through the process personally on OOos behalf either. They definitely put me off. IMO, they take a lot of the fun out of it, and erect a barrier on two fronts, the first is the practical hassle of signing it, faxing it, sometimes even buying stamps and posting it, clicking through whatever. Ugh, its so often not worth the pain. The other barrier is the difference it makes to the perception of the body that wants it. Logging a patch, implementing features, etc to help out fellow developers and users "just like me" is one thing, but when presented with a copyright assignment then you're pushed out into a different world where there's some legal entity wants to own or co-own your work, and that's not a warm and cosy place. Who exactly are they, what do they want to do with it, why do they need it. What are their motivations and can I trust them ?. If enough people of one company or another get onto the board will they sell out and relicense everything to some third party. Do I have to read all their bylaws to see if that's not going to happen. Do I trust them. As far as I know, GNOME, KDE, Linux kernel and the GIMP along with masses of the little projects that makes everything work, typically get along fine without copyright assignment, though some have quirks like optional copyright assignment. There is the advantage of being able to move up to a newer version of the LGPL of course, but large chunks of the code is locked in as LGPLv3 anyway, so using a newer version of the LGPL is only possible if Oracle relicenses their existing contribution under that, the current policy of placing new work under a GPLv3+/LGPLv3+/MPLv1.1 should cover situations like that if they arise. C. -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document Foundation
On Fri, 2010-11-05 at 17:25 +0100, Italo Vignoli wrote: > In addition, the free software community lacks the experience to build a > certification program (industry certification, similar to Microsoft, > Adobe, etcetera), and the Sun history shows that free software vendors - > with several exceptions (RedHat, MySQL prior to Sun, others) - miss the > point (I have had many talks with Sun marketing about this issue but I > have not found a single person able to understand). I hope that excludes me :-) Of course I don't have control of resources like Sun or IBM but I do have the expertise. When I first mentioned certification of OOo I was told just use ECDL. Why give them the money when we can use it to put back into development? I find it very baffling that everyone is always looking for a sustainable service to support development of free software yet when one is found, no-one seems to be able to understand it. It's not that complicated in principle. What is complex is dealing with associated government admin. etc. We should collectively persuade Novel (or Google) to invest in it. After all Novel needs service models to produce income and we could show how they could make money from it as well as sustain LO. Surely it would be better for them to cover the costs of Michael and other developers from a steady income stream? Certainly we have the expertise (and technologies) to do it and the platform with LO to reach a massive market, what we don't have is the investment to exploit that opportunity to its full potential. If RH certification is thought to be successful, compare the potential size of that market to the market for LO certification of end users rather than Linux Sys admins. ECDL - 9 million certificates last year. Really it's a no-brainer but surprisingly difficult to get people in a position to invest to see it. > Yes, it is going to be damn difficult to fund a project as big as TDF > (believe me, after 30 years as a top manager or a consultant for large > IT companies such as IBM, Dell, Compaq, 3Com, Adobe, and the likes, I > have some experience, and I understand the business) but we must build a > different business model (this is not going to be a carbon copy of the > OOo project, and LibreOffice - as it is today - is not what we see as > the future of the office suite). I agree, if it was easy someone would have done it already :-) But I don't really believe it is as difficult as some would think. I just think we have to look at long term sustainability and business strategy rather than short term coding issues. Probably the latter are a lot easier for developers so they tend to get first focus. Business strategy is what will make or break LO in the longer term. -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications A new approach to assessment for learning www.theINGOTs.org - 01827 305940 You have received this email from the following company: The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales. -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document Foundation
On 05/11/10 11.57, Gianluca Turconi wrote: And, by saying the truth, why a TDF certification program should be better than a hypothetical "IBM LIbO certified professional" label, in a wider Community? The problem is not the quality of the certification program. Vendors have their own certification programs to their specific advantage, and this would neither bring money to the community nor liberate the community from a single vendor lock in (certification is key for Microsoft lock in). In addition, the free software community lacks the experience to build a certification program (industry certification, similar to Microsoft, Adobe, etcetera), and the Sun history shows that free software vendors - with several exceptions (RedHat, MySQL prior to Sun, others) - miss the point (I have had many talks with Sun marketing about this issue but I have not found a single person able to understand). I'm surely missing something, but *as far as what I've read in this list is concerned*, this foundation is starting to appear like an empty box: few needs to exist and even less powers. At the moment, and judging from outside, this perception is absolutely true (and, believe me, we are working hard to dispel this perception, but each one of us has to deal with a daily job and it is not easy). Please, get me right, I'm really trying to understand, because I've read several different opinions from TDF founders and I know a consensus has still to be found about this matter. > However, the vehemence of some voices let me think that a majority may already exist in your group, although there hasn't been a vote yet. Or, at least, that any decision different from the opinion expressed, for example, by Michael Meeks, may cause more problems than anything else during the foundation start-up phase, independently of the fair evaluation of the alternatives. Again, another right perception. Unfortunately, building agreement and consensus is a process, especially when you have different minds to put together. Anyway, Michael is young and energetic and very passionate. I am quite old but equally energetic, even if I am less passionate on the subject of CA (just because I cannot understand where is the trick for users like me, as I see advantages for developers on one side and for corporations on the other). In any case, I would not connect the existence of the foundation to the presence of a CA, as this represents only the position of people who believe that free software can live only with corporate money. Of course, I understand the position as there are many people who want to make their living "selling" consultancy to corporations who do not understand free software but need to be involved in it. Quite simply, TDF is not going to provide additional ground for sales to these individuals, because we do not believe that corporate sponsors (as they have been involved in free software project so far) add value to the project. Yes, it is going to be damn difficult to fund a project as big as TDF (believe me, after 30 years as a top manager or a consultant for large IT companies such as IBM, Dell, Compaq, 3Com, Adobe, and the likes, I have some experience, and I understand the business) but we must build a different business model (this is not going to be a carbon copy of the OOo project, and LibreOffice - as it is today - is not what we see as the future of the office suite). Ciao, Italo -- Italo Vignoli italo.vign...@gmail.com Mobile +39.348.5653829 VoIP: +39.02.320621813 Skype: italovignoli -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document Foundation
Il 05/11/2010 13.24, Ian ha scritto: But if there is a desire for an independent LO foundation it also provides an opportunity to sustain it. A desire is different from a need, in a decentralized development system, but I got your point, thanks, Ian. You explained it very well, indeed. :) -- Gianluca Turconi -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document Foundation
On Fri, 2010-11-05 at 11:57 +0100, Gianluca Turconi wrote: > Il 04/11/2010 16.56, Italo Vignoli ha scritto: > > The community cannot issue formal certifications about software, and > > this is where the OOo project has missed the point. > > I know it. > > Nevertheless, a foundation isn't needed to start a certification program. > > Any vendor may start it, with more or less official and international > character. > > And, by saying the truth, why a TDF certification program should be > better than a hypothetical "IBM LIbO certified professional" label, in a > wider Community? Certification is based on confidence. Large vendors putting their name on certification helps in that process. However, there are other considerations. Here in the UK, unless training leads to a government accredited certification it won't get funded. That means in practice no FE College is going to offer that certification and you are confining your market to the private sector. In addition, in Europe it is a high priority for National Qualifications frameworks and their associated qualifications to be referenced to the European Qualifications Framework. This can attract funding from the EU into the project and give further confidence in the certification. So what I said to the OOo community about 6 years ago was that certification provided an opportunity to get an income for development that was independent of Sun. I guess I explained it badly :-) Sure anyone could make a certification program - *If* they have the professional knowledge and will to make it work. Its not as simple as just printing certificates ;-) But if there is a desire for an independent LO foundation it also provides an opportunity to sustain it. > I'm surely missing something, but *as far as what I've read in this list > is concerned*, this foundation is starting to appear like an empty box: > few needs to exist and even less powers. > > Please, get me right, I'm really trying to understand, because I've read > several different opinions from TDF founders and I know a consensus has > still to be found about this matter. However, the vehemence of some > voices let me think that a majority may already exist in your group, > although there hasn't been a vote yet. > > Or, at least, that any decision different from the opinion expressed, > for example, by Michael Meeks, may cause more problems than anything > else during the foundation start-up phase, independently of the fair > evaluation of the alternatives. > > Regards, > -- > Gianluca Turconi -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications A new approach to assessment for learning www.theINGOTs.org - 01827 305940 You have received this email from the following company: The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales. -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document Foundation
Il 04/11/2010 16.56, Italo Vignoli ha scritto: The community cannot issue formal certifications about software, and this is where the OOo project has missed the point. I know it. Nevertheless, a foundation isn't needed to start a certification program. Any vendor may start it, with more or less official and international character. And, by saying the truth, why a TDF certification program should be better than a hypothetical "IBM LIbO certified professional" label, in a wider Community? I'm surely missing something, but *as far as what I've read in this list is concerned*, this foundation is starting to appear like an empty box: few needs to exist and even less powers. Please, get me right, I'm really trying to understand, because I've read several different opinions from TDF founders and I know a consensus has still to be found about this matter. However, the vehemence of some voices let me think that a majority may already exist in your group, although there hasn't been a vote yet. Or, at least, that any decision different from the opinion expressed, for example, by Michael Meeks, may cause more problems than anything else during the foundation start-up phase, independently of the fair evaluation of the alternatives. Regards, -- Gianluca Turconi -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document Foundation
On 04/11/10 16.35, Gianluca Turconi wrote: However, we're disputing about the meaning of words and I don't find any value in this, because if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck, whatever name you initially used to call it. The community cannot issue formal certifications about software, and this is where the OOo project has missed the point. If you do not allow people to make money around a free software project, you will have the few hot ones but not the many warm ones, while you need both. -- Italo Vignoli italo.vign...@gmail.com Mobile +39.348.5653829 VoIP: +39.02.320621813 Skype: italovignoli -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document Foundation
Il 04/11/2010 13.37, Italo Vignoli ha scritto: There is much more in the legal entity than copyright assignment, and at the moment - in my very personal and humble opinion - we miss the rest more than the CA. Some decisions cannot be changed along the way. Many times, once a decision is taken, it influences the whole life of a project. What you call "ecosystem" in my mind is the "Community", and IMO it cannot be created, but it develops itself around a project, even without a foundation. However, we're disputing about the meaning of words and I don't find any value in this, because if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck, whatever name you initially used to call it. I've understood what vision of the project have several TDF founders. As I previously wrote, it worked in the past and I hope it works this time too. Regards, -- Gianluca Turconi -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document Foundation
On 04/11/10 11.26, Gianluca Turconi wrote: It would be enough a code repository and a technical committee composed by most important/best respected contributors. A software project of the size of a productivity suite is not just about software, but is about maintaining relationships with different stakeholders, participating in committees and industry bodies (like OASIS), marketing, etcetera. In addition, it is about creating the ecosystem that has been sorely missing around OOo (certification of developers, integrators, trainers and users). Free software projects cannot survive if there is not the structure necessary to generate added value (and revenues). Copyright assignment is just one of the problems, and is connected to the vision of a foundation supported by corporate sponsors (which I do not support fully, in the sense that corporate sponsors - at least the corporate sponsors which I can think of - usually want a total control of the structure: think Oracle with OOo, and the respect of the OOo community they have demonstrated). There is much more in the legal entity than copyright assignment, and at the moment - in my very personal and humble opinion - we miss the rest more than the CA. Ciao, Italo -- Italo Vignoli italo.vign...@gmail.com Mobile +39.348.5653829 VoIP: +39.02.320621813 Skype: italovignoli -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document Foundation
Il 03/11/2010 16.00, Roberto Resoli ha scritto: If the rational conclusion of these arguments is that the Linux Kernel, > Mozilla, SAMBA, GNOME, KDE, and by extension -all- Linux distributions > are fundamentally unsafe to ship - then we have a huge and un-fixable > problem; but one that is by far beyond the scope of LibreOffice to fix. I agree; nevertheless, i think we should decide what kind of foundation TDF would be, and if the foundation could effectively join the interests all the subjects interested in LibO (or other projects in the future). Dealing with patent claims is one of things that i think TDF should take care of, without being necessarily "doom mongering". Well, from what I've read in this and other threads, I'm wondering if a "foundation" (association) is needed at all. Many opinions, from TDF founders too, have been expressed in such a way that a central organization with a legal identity is just like killing a mosquito with a bazooka. It would be enough a code repository and a technical committee composed by most important/best respected contributors. The vendors may take the code from the repository and make their own distributions and may/may not contribute their modifications back. If a official TDF distribution is desidered (because in such a system it isn't *needed*), the LibO trademark may be registered by a contributor. A "political" committee and all the legal stuff, in that system, it's simply unnecessary and, IMO, highly misleading about who is doing what, and therefore to whom liabilities belong. Again, this is the third time I wrote this sentence in this mailing list: there is a rather huge misunderstanding about the meaning of "Community" and "Foundation", and IMVHO, it's about time to clear this misunderstanding once for all. Regards, -- Gianluca Turconi -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document Foundation
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 11/03/2010 01:41 PM, BRM wrote: > However, all that doesn't mean it might not be good for TDF to offer > developers the choice of copyright assignment without requiring it; something > that would also be good to offer the estates of deceased developers when those situations arrive. But that is all - an option should the developer with to exercise it. IOW, what is needed is a document created by the foundation that is legally binding in the country that the foundation is located in, that enables either an individual or an organization to assign the intellectual property rights of either all of their contributions, or the contributions that are specifically identified and described in the document, to the foundation. This probably would be half a dozen or so documents, for each type of contribution, and contributor. jonathon -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEUEARECAAYFAkzRo98ACgkQaC1raifmCuFcOgCdHtj1PIRl0YhOrLrqZLAH13EB xcYAmK23Pk8NNA92sBvP2Rem9YSDxng= =25M5 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document Foundation
2010/11/3 Michael Meeks : > > On Tue, 2010-11-02 at 17:28 +0100, Roberto Resoli wrote: >> Copyright Assignment is nor bad nor good, it's a compromise > > I do not see assignment in -any- way as a compromise; but as an > un-necessary extreme. like mine, it's an opinion, of course ;-) >> i am still waiting to see any reply also to Andrea's proposals >> in another thread [1] > > Oh - I guess I should reply there. thanks >> I agree with Andrea, and I think that all this JCA stuff need a more >> pragmatic approach > > Honestly; the amount of doom mongering I guess that with this term you mean "profecy of disaster", something that in italian we could name "being a Cassandra". I didn't wanted to be a Cassandra; it only seems to me that JCA/CLA and similar issues should be discussed openly, with fresh mind, evaluating pro and con. > in this thread is staggering. > Suddenly we somehow 'discovered' that all FLOSS licenses are > un-enforceable, jurisdictionless, that no-one has really contributed > anything, in any binding way to any eclectically owned FLOSS project[1], > and that only mad people would ship that software :-) No, the issue here regards a really complex project, more than 12 millions lines of code, I guess, that needs a transition from the "umbrella" of Oracle to another model; clearly it's important to conduct the transition in a way that makes feasible to manage the project in the future. > If the rational conclusion of these arguments is that the Linux Kernel, > Mozilla, SAMBA, GNOME, KDE, and by extension -all- Linux distributions > are fundamentally unsafe to ship - then we have a huge and un-fixable > problem; but one that is by far beyond the scope of LibreOffice to fix. I agree; nevertheless, i think we should decide what kind of foundation TDF would be, and if the foundation could effectively join the interests all the subjects interested in LibO (or other projects in the future). Dealing with patent claims is one of things that i think TDF should take care of, without being necessarily "doom mongering". > In particular OpenOffice already has this problem, since it includes > big chunks of Mozilla - which has some form of mild certification of > authenticity - but this only extends to the person doing the committing, > not the code they commit [ from others ] ;-) ie. it is eclectically > owned, and there is no paperwork, or click-through before contributing. > > So at this point, there are two options: > > * throw up arms in dismay, conclude nothing is 'safe', and > wander around desparately trying to aggregate stronger > rights to the entire codebase in various organisations > [ which IMHO aggregates problems with it ]. > Or: > * follow the rest of the world including eg. IBM (who are not > short of lawyers) who already ship eg. Mozilla, SAMBA and > Linux without any of these apparently indispensible > assignments > > ;-) This dicotomy in my opinion is not reflecting the real situation, nor I said that assignments are indispensable. It's a subject should be discussed with all the players. By the way, TDF is still not a player, because it still lacks a legal status bye, rob > HTH, > > Michael. > > [1] - eclectically owned projects are, by far, the vast majority of Free > Software projects. > -- > michael.me...@novell.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document Foundation
- Original Message > From: Michael Meeks > On Tue, 2010-11-02 at 17:28 +0100, Roberto Resoli wrote: > > Copyright Assignment is nor bad nor good, it's a compromise > > I do not see assignment in -any- way as a compromise; but as an > un-necessary extreme. Well, let's get back to the real issue in this thread...(more below) > > i am still waiting to see any reply also to Andrea's proposals > > in another thread [1] > > Oh - I guess I should reply there. > > > I agree with Andrea, and I think that all this JCA stuff need a more > > pragmatic approach > > Honestly; the amount of doom mongering in this thread is staggering. > Suddenly we somehow 'discovered' that all FLOSS licenses are > un-enforceable, jurisdictionless, that no-one has really contributed > anything, in any binding way to any eclectically owned FLOSS project[1], > and that only mad people would ship that software :-) I quite agree - that's a rather foundation-less claim that it is unenforceable, especially given all the big guns behind existing projects using such a model. Given how much the FSF/FSFII/etc and consults the community when developing the licenses an issue with unenforceability from such a nature would have arisen already; but it simply has not. So let's get back to the real issue - the _only_ reason for copyright assignment is to help the organizers of LibreOffice (TDF) with keeping the license current - e.g. moving from LGPLv3 to LGPLv4, etc. If the TDF SC and LibreOffice developers are not concerned about that issue (and from what I have seen in this thread the guidance is already to license as LGPLv3+ for new contributions and there is nothing we, TDF/etc, can do about Sun/Oracle owned code), then there is no reason for copyright assignment, pure and simple. Any kind of other fear mongering to get copyright assignment put in place is unjustified. However, all that doesn't mean it might not be good for TDF to offer developers the choice of copyright assignment without requiring it; something that would also be good to offer the estates of deceased developers when those situations arrive. But that is all - an option should the developer with to exercise it. Ben -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document Foundation
On Tue, 2010-11-02 at 17:28 +0100, Roberto Resoli wrote: > Copyright Assignment is nor bad nor good, it's a compromise I do not see assignment in -any- way as a compromise; but as an un-necessary extreme. > i am still waiting to see any reply also to Andrea's proposals > in another thread [1] Oh - I guess I should reply there. > I agree with Andrea, and I think that all this JCA stuff need a more > pragmatic approach Honestly; the amount of doom mongering in this thread is staggering. Suddenly we somehow 'discovered' that all FLOSS licenses are un-enforceable, jurisdictionless, that no-one has really contributed anything, in any binding way to any eclectically owned FLOSS project[1], and that only mad people would ship that software :-) If the rational conclusion of these arguments is that the Linux Kernel, Mozilla, SAMBA, GNOME, KDE, and by extension -all- Linux distributions are fundamentally unsafe to ship - then we have a huge and un-fixable problem; but one that is by far beyond the scope of LibreOffice to fix. In particular OpenOffice already has this problem, since it includes big chunks of Mozilla - which has some form of mild certification of authenticity - but this only extends to the person doing the committing, not the code they commit [ from others ] ;-) ie. it is eclectically owned, and there is no paperwork, or click-through before contributing. So at this point, there are two options: * throw up arms in dismay, conclude nothing is 'safe', and wander around desparately trying to aggregate stronger rights to the entire codebase in various organisations [ which IMHO aggregates problems with it ]. Or: * follow the rest of the world including eg. IBM (who are not short of lawyers) who already ship eg. Mozilla, SAMBA and Linux without any of these apparently indispensible assignments ;-) HTH, Michael. [1] - eclectically owned projects are, by far, the vast majority of Free Software projects. -- michael.me...@novell.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document Foundation
Il 03/11/2010 8.59, Andre Schnabel ha scritto: Ianal - but for German (and most EU countries) law, digital agreements are only equivalent to written ones, if there is a trusted electronic signature in place. So a just "click thru" would not really establish something that is legally binding. How a valid contractual will is expressed, it depends on the law governing the agreement and this can be: a) the law chosen by the parties in the agreement; b) the law of the country where the defendant lives; c) any other law expressed by the *private* international laws of the defendant's country; d) any other law with which the agreement has "the stricter ties" (see International Convention of Rome on contractual obligations, 1980 - and others). And this only for EU. Then, you have to consider that we aren't talking about a simple online transaction, but copyright laws are involved too. As long as we don't know where the "real thing" (the Foundation as legal entity) will be registered, we can only say that a solution *may* work. Regards, -- Gianluca Turconi -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document Foundation
2010/11/3 Andre Schnabel : > Hi, > > > > Von: Gianluca Turconi > Gesendet: 03.11.10 08:40 Uhr > > Il 02/11/2010 20.57, Charles Marcus ha scritto: > It might sound complicated, > but once it is automated, it would 'just > work'. Of course, the system that > holds this information should be > backed up religiously...;) This system may > work, indeed. It would cover several important national laws in which digital > agreements are equalized to written ones. > > Ianal - but for German (and most EU countries) law, digital agreements are > only > equivalent to written ones, if there is a trusted electronic signature in > place. > > So a just "click thru" would not really establish something that is legally > binding. The same in Italy, i think. The framework on digital signatures was established in EU in 1999: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31999L0093:en:HTML and i think is currently adopted in almost all UE countries national laws. bye, rob > > regards, > > André -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document Foundation
Hi, Von: Gianluca Turconi Gesendet: 03.11.10 08:40 Uhr Il 02/11/2010 20.57, Charles Marcus ha scritto: > It might sound complicated, but once it is automated, it would 'just > work'. Of course, the system that holds this information should be > backed up religiously...;) This system may work, indeed. It would cover several important national laws in which digital agreements are equalized to written ones. Ianal - but for German (and most EU countries) law, digital agreements are only equivalent to written ones, if there is a trusted electronic signature in place. So a just "click thru" would not really establish something that is legally binding. regards, André -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document Foundation
Il 02/11/2010 20.57, Charles Marcus ha scritto: It might sound complicated, but once it is automated, it would 'just work'. Of course, the system that holds this information should be backed up religiously...;) This system may work, indeed. It would cover several important national laws in which digital agreements are equalized to written ones. Since *nobody* can check all laws of the world, it would be a good compromise btw legal safety and simplicity. It isn't the best solution, but something is always better than nothing. :) -- Gianluca Turconi -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document Foundation
On 2010-11-02 8:12 AM, Thorsten Behrens wrote: > I respect your opinion - alas, I have a different one. For your > specific example, if someone submits code to LibO, stating in her > mail "I license this under LGPLv3+ / MPL", and that later turns out > to be false pretense, that gives you about as much leverage against > the contributor as if she signs extra documents (at least for all > practical matters. Simple (for the submitter) is best... Just define the process for code submissions and make the agreement a part of that process - a checkbox, that must explicitly be checked, with clear and unequivocal language of what the submitter is agreeing to, is all that should be necessary. This could be a one-time thing for those with direct commit access and those who create an account with a web based submission system, and something that the user must agree to each and every time for submissions done by email - ie, they submit a patch, the system holds it, sends an email back to the submitter, with a link they must click, which takes them to a page where they must signify their agreement to the copyright assignment, after which - and only after which - their submission will be accepted. It might sound complicated, but once it is automated, it would 'just work'. Of course, the system that holds this information should be backed up religiously... ;) -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document Foundation
2010/11/1 Michael Meeks : > Hi Andrea, ... >> Now, without copyright assignment/agreement (granted by the LibreOffice >> developers to the Document Foundation), the Document Foundation will be >> in the awkward situation I described: it manages a product (LibreOffice) >> but cannot represent the LibreOffice developers since it doesn't own the >> code. > > Sure - it can recommend, advise, and encourage people in directions; it > can lead the project via the brand, it can encourage collaboration and > resolve conflicts - but sure; it is not a monolithic entity that can > dictate ownership of the code. Nor it could help contributors in any way, if they are sued because of their contribution. Copyright Assignment is nor bad nor good, it's a compromise; i am still waiting to see any reply also to Andrea's proposals in another thread [1] . I agree with Andrea, and I think that all this JCA stuff need a more pragmatic approach, when the TDF will become a stable entity with a legal peronality the big players can deal with. bye, rob [1] http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/msg00533.html -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document Foundation
Gianluca Turconi wrote: > However, what it works it isn't always the best *legal* solution. > Hi Gianluca, oh, I certainly agree on this. As usual, the challenge is to hit the sweet spot, between attracting developers, and satisfying other requirements. Cheers, -- Thorsten -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document Foundation
Il 02/11/2010 13.12, Thorsten Behrens ha scritto: [...] I respect your opinion - alas, I have a different one. For your specific example, if someone submits code to LibO, stating in her mail "I license this under LGPLv3+ / MPL", and that later turns out to be false pretense, that gives you about as much leverage against the contributor as if she signs extra documents (at least for all practical matters. Sure, you can include huge damages in that legal document - but would have to extract it, from a potential independent contributor, in the first place). Sueing your contributor, in any way, is most likely the lesser of your worries in such cases... ;) I understand that the first need and worry of the new project is to attract new developers. Firstly, survive. Then, think how do you succeeded in doing so. It's a Law of Nature. :) Of course, distributors *can* risk if they want. And they do. Large portions of the typical Linux stack are developed in this, or comparable, ways. I know it works. However, what it works it isn't always the best *legal* solution. If this is the chosen approach to contributions, well, I hope it'll work once again. :) Regards, Gianluca -- Gianluca Turconi -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document Foundation
Il 02/11/2010 15.15, BRM ha scritto: This again goes back to what kind of community do you want? Do you want a true F/OSS community that is based on trust? Or do you want a bureaucratic community based on dis-trust? Is trust in words or in papers? Gentlemen say in words, layers in papers. ;-) The main issue, IMO, is that TDF/LibO will not live in a aseptic F/OSS world where words have still their full value, but in an enlarged world market with huge not-so-kind corporations whose profits LibO may cut. Is prevention better than cure? I think so. Nevertheless, I understand why a freer method is important in order to attract more developers. Let's say I'd like a compromise between safety and pleasure. :) Regards, -- Gianluca Turconi -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document Foundation
- Original Message
> From: Thorsten Behrens
> Gianluca Turconi wrote:
> > I've already suggested that if the copyright assignment is
> > considered a too heavy burden, it should be asked to the contributor
> > at least a statement that clearly affirms his/her absolute copyright
> > rights for the contribution (nobody else can claim nothing about the
> > contribution) and includes a indemnity clause ("clausola di manleva"
> > in my language) in the unlucky case what he/she stated it isn't true
> > and somebody else has valid legal rights for the contribution.
> >
> > A "no signature involved, whatsoever" approach is just too risky, IMO.
> >
> Hi Gianluca,
>
> I respect your opinion - alas, I have a different one. For your
> specific example, if someone submits code to LibO, stating in her
> mail "I license this under LGPLv3+ / MPL", and that later turns out
> to be false pretense, that gives you about as much leverage against
> the contributor as if she signs extra documents (at least for all
> practical matters. Sure, you can include huge damages in that legal
> document - but would have to extract it, from a potential
> independent contributor, in the first place). Sueing your
> contributor, in any way, is most likely the lesser of your worries
> in such cases... ;)
>
> > Of course, distributors *can* risk if they want.
> >
> And they do. Large portions of the typical Linux stack are developed
> in this, or comparable, ways.
>
The majority of open source software is developed in that manner.
Only the large formalized organizations do anything different.
And while IANAL, each individual contribution would probably be governed by the
laws not of where the distributor resides, but of where the contributor resides
unless the license states otherwise. FSF licenses (GPL, LGPL, etc) do not
presently state a specific jurisdiction last I was aware. If the laws where the
distributor resides does not allow that model, then the distributor better move
to somewhere that does, or cease distribution when that model is employed.
This again goes back to what kind of community do you want?
Do you want a true F/OSS community that is based on trust?
Or do you want a bureaucratic community based on dis-trust?
If you are contemplating the need for suing your contributors then you are
already in the bureaucratic community landscape.
And if you were to sue a contributor (for any reason) consider what the
community response may be - if they agree, they'll get behind you; if not,
they'll leave in droves.
$0.02
Ben
--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document Foundation
Gianluca Turconi wrote:
> I've already suggested that if the copyright assignment is
> considered a too heavy burden, it should be asked to the contributor
> at least a statement that clearly affirms his/her absolute copyright
> rights for the contribution (nobody else can claim nothing about the
> contribution) and includes a indemnity clause ("clausola di manleva"
> in my language) in the unlucky case what he/she stated it isn't true
> and somebody else has valid legal rights for the contribution.
>
> A "no signature involved, whatsoever" approach is just too risky, IMO.
>
Hi Gianluca,
I respect your opinion - alas, I have a different one. For your
specific example, if someone submits code to LibO, stating in her
mail "I license this under LGPLv3+ / MPL", and that later turns out
to be false pretense, that gives you about as much leverage against
the contributor as if she signs extra documents (at least for all
practical matters. Sure, you can include huge damages in that legal
document - but would have to extract it, from a potential
independent contributor, in the first place). Sueing your
contributor, in any way, is most likely the lesser of your worries
in such cases... ;)
> Of course, distributors *can* risk if they want.
>
And they do. Large portions of the typical Linux stack are developed
in this, or comparable, ways.
Cheers,
-- Thorsten
--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document Foundation
Il 01/11/2010 20.50, BRM ha scritto:
While IANAL, to my understanding at least the US requires explicit documentation
of copyright assignment.
So a license stating such would not work.
In many countries, software licenses are considered contracts (by law or
jurisprudence) and *must* be accepted before having legal validity.
The scheme is:
developer <--agreement--> distributor <--agreement--> user
The modalities of agreement change from country to country: written
acceptation for formal existence of the contract, written acceptation
for its use as an evidence in a trial, oral acceptation for formal
existence of the contract, and many other formalities that surely exist,
especially in extra-UE and common law countries.
Then, there is the overly important legal issue of what national
copyright law is applicable to the code.
Let's say that the national law of the contributor forbids any oral or
implicit transmission of copyright rights. What happens to his/her
contribution?
In his/her country, that transmission would be simply unlawful and
therefore void (or something equivalent to void). Afterwards, that
contributor signs a contract with a corporation or individual and gives
his/her copyright up.
What happens to the poor distributor (TDF or others) who bases his
*presumed* distribution rights on a void oral agreement and is sued from
such corporation or individual? No good things, be sure. :'(
I've already suggested that if the copyright assignment is considered a
too heavy burden, it should be asked to the contributor at least a
statement that clearly affirms his/her absolute copyright rights for the
contribution (nobody else can claim nothing about the contribution) and
includes a indemnity clause ("clausola di manleva" in my language) in
the unlucky case what he/she stated it isn't true and somebody else has
valid legal rights for the contribution.
A "no signature involved, whatsoever" approach is just too risky, IMO.
Of course, distributors *can* risk if they want.
--
Gianluca Turconi
--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document Foundation
- Original Message > From: Charles Marcus > On 2010-10-31 6:56 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > > Now, without copyright assignment/agreement (granted by the LibreOffice > > developers to the Document Foundation), the Document Foundation will be > > in the awkward situation I described: it manages a product (LibreOffice) > > but cannot represent the LibreOffice developers since it doesn't own the > > code. > Why can't TDF just add a simple, one-liner to its license stating that > any contributions automatically grant a co-copyright to TDF? Of course, > this would have to be made crystal clear to any contributors prior to > accepting their code, but I don't see why a specific signed document > would be necessary - I don't have to sign anything for an EULA to be > binding. While IANAL, to my understanding at least the US requires explicit documentation of copyright assignment. So a license stating such would not work. So in order to be able to use it in all situation you have to play to the least common denominator legally - thus explicit copyright assignment. Again, IANAL consult legal counsel accordingly for something authoritative. Ben -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document Foundation
On 2010-10-31 6:56 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > Now, without copyright assignment/agreement (granted by the LibreOffice > developers to the Document Foundation), the Document Foundation will be > in the awkward situation I described: it manages a product (LibreOffice) > but cannot represent the LibreOffice developers since it doesn't own the > code. Why can't TDF just add a simple, one-liner to its license stating that any contributions automatically grant a co-copyright to TDF? Of course, this would have to be made crystal clear to any contributors prior to accepting their code, but I don't see why a specific signed document would be necessary - I don't have to sign anything for an EULA to be binding. -- Best regards, Charles -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document Foundation
Hi Andrea, On Sun, 2010-10-31 at 23:56 +0100, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > I haven't seen any new contributor write that they joined because of > (the refusal of) a copyright agreement; while I have seen several new > contributors write that they started contributing because the "Easy > Hacks" were so easy that they didn't require any previous technical > knowledge. Well - there is of course an element of truth to this. However - easy hacks are attractive IMHO because not only are they easy, but because the result gets included in the code-base, and the developer of them is treated as a valued peer. Saying "sure you did some good work, but until we get a faxed form it is worthless to us" to all your contributors has a sterilising effect on volunteers - and it has a -huge- scalding effect on other corporations wanting to contribute. Furthermore - the absence of a corporate spider at the centre of the web makes it possible to build a loyalty and sense of ownership of the project as a whole - rather than to a company: which is critical. To see ease of writing patches as the primary improvement is to miss the fact that people don't just want to write patches, they want to get them included, and be valued as contributors, co-owners and peers: not as 'intellectual property production machines' to be 'harvested' etc. :-) > Now, without copyright assignment/agreement (granted by the LibreOffice > developers to the Document Foundation), the Document Foundation will be > in the awkward situation I described: it manages a product (LibreOffice) > but cannot represent the LibreOffice developers since it doesn't own the > code. Sure - it can recommend, advise, and encourage people in directions; it can lead the project via the brand, it can encourage collaboration and resolve conflicts - but sure; it is not a monolithic entity that can dictate ownership of the code. > This makes it a weaker player: Or does it ? sometimes influence can be rather valuable, more so than ownership or control of the asset. In this case because people are willing to give you far more influence than ownership :-) > Do you need an example? Think of a "happy ending" where, to the benefit > of users, OOo and all derivatives merge in a common project. There are > many stakeholders (Oracle, IBM, Novell, Red Hat, Redflag, the Document > Foundation...) and they might agree on a new, free, license with some > special provisions due to the long history of OOo. Now, without > copyright assignments/agreements every stakeholder would be able to join > the unified project except the Document Foundation. Wait - this is an amusingly different side to the same coin that I see. You try to draw a picture of a terrible dysfunctional situation where companies have all this freedom to join something that individuals do not :-) The reality is quite different - that individual contributors to LibreOffice have -collectively- a substantial say in how their aggregate contribution is used - since no-one else can go away and "negotiate" away ownership of their code / translation / artwork etc. Indeed - individuals are peers of their corporate contributors in any such discussion. That means that it cannot be done in a dark corner - for sure ! This IMHO is a huge strength and reason for individual ownership. > By choosing against copyright assignments/agreements you are killing > this dream... Personally I hope that the 'dream' of assigning exclusive ownership to Oracle, that is not shared with others, is thoroughly dead. To me the experience of this has been more of a nightmare than any dream - in addition I have -never- seen evidence that Oracle actually needs this right. Furthermore, I am persuaded that in general, developers bear other contributors no ill will per-se, and would be open to a new (non-abusive) [ie. copy-left] licensing regimen, if one is proposed. Clearly, the dream of working together is real, the licensing regimen we suggest 'LGPLv3+/MPL' meets Oracle's product needs [ though not behind-the-scenes license sale needs of course ] (of that I am certain). So - I do believe this is a completely reasonable offer, made in good faith, and that the (C) assignment issue is really a distraction; and worse a dangerous one about concentrating control, whose merit (as you suggest) is around non-transparent discussion and negotiation. HTH, Michael. -- michael.me...@novell.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document Foundation
2010/11/1 Giuseppe Castagno : > Charles-H. Schulz wrote: >> >> Hello BRM, >> >> >> Le Thu, 28 Oct 2010 07:12:59 -0700 (PDT), >> BRM a écrit : >> >>> - Original Message >>> From: Charles-H. Schulz 4) the notion that we cannot change license because we don't have copyright assignment needs to be put to rest once and for all today. There is a very simple explanation with respect to this > > [big snip] > >>> Perhaps the way around that is to require those contributing TDF to >>> use the "or later" language; though some may not want to. >>> >>> Even without copyright assignment the only thing standing in the way >>> of changing the license - whether to LGPLv4 or even GPLv3 or whatever >>> else - is getting the permission of _all_ the copyright holders. >> >> Good objection indeed! Actually, the problem is partly solved, since we >> now license our software under "LGPL v3 or later". At least it would be >> solved for the LGPL side of things. But my real answer here though, is >> perhaps more provocative: if Oracle changes the licence, do we really >> care? for the 3.3 we stick to the codebase of OOo, but I'm unsure we'll >> stick that much to it in further releases. In fact, I can already >> point out, looking at our development activity, that we're not taking >> the path of being "OpenOffice.org, just recompiled by the community". I >> think as the time will go by, we will diverge more and more and end up >> becoming quite different software. >>> >>> >From what I understand this is already impossible to do under Linux due to >>> >>> deaths of at least one contributor. >> >> Yes, and in this case a rewrite is needed. > > this can work in practice for small addendum, but what about bigger one? > > That may take some time. > > I implemented PDF/A-1a in OOo around 3 years ago > (http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS/entry/news_in_pdfexport), rewriting it > from scratch would not be a quick matter. > > And, my personal opinion only, years back I signed the then Sun (J)CA, I > will sign a TDF one or similar without problem. > > May be the CA should be on a voluntary basis. > > Just my 0,02 as a dev, and not a lawyer. I can only add an example: Mozilla relicensing took "four and a half years, 445 contributors and 28522 files": http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/gerv/archives/2006/03/relicensing_complete.html And i think that OOo/LibO is one order magnitude (10 times) than Mozilla in terms of lines of code. bye, rob > > beppec56 -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document Foundation
2010/11/1 Harri Pitkänen : > Hi! Hi all, > On Monday 01 November 2010, Andre Schnabel wrote: >> If we want an answer on this (would developers not have joined if there >> was a CA) we would need to ask them. This should indeed be asked >> at the dev-list. I'd bet, that at least some of them would state >> that they not would have joined. > > I can at least say that I would most likely not have contributed if a CA had > been required. "Most likely" means that I would have read the assignment and > looked at the organization behind it before making the decision. If they were > both solid and there were strong enough justification for it, I would sign. In > this case neither the organization nor the assignment text exist yet so I > cannot do that. The same holds for me. CA is possibly a "necessary evil", it doesn't make much sense asking an unbiased opinion to developers, they don't like it in general, of course. TDF has to have a very clear position about it, nevertheless, for the very good reasons Andrea already pointed out. TDF is going to be in a much weaker position if it does not asks a JCA or CLA or something like that to his contributors. Weaker regarding his position towards commercial companies, weaker in his ability to provide support to his contributors against patent claims or other litigations. As a developer, i think that protection from patent claims provided by L/GPL3 in not sufficient, I would like if TDF could be in charge in such cases, not me. > I am not a major contributor so this may not weight much in the final > decision. But one rather large problem that I see with the assignments is that > if they are required also from developers of external libraries then the > assignment would also be needed from developers that may not have any interest > in LibreOffice but may still have some common development interest with us. > > Let's take Word import/export filters for example. They could (at least in > theory, I saw the idea somewhere in the Wiki) be split to a separate library > and shared with KOffice or someone who wanted to write a free competitor for > Google Docs. People developing such libraries might react badly if they would > be required to sign a CA just to get a patch in to support a product that they > have no personal interest in. One of the strengths of free software is that we > can work together on such things even if our own goals were totally different, > perhaps even competing. > > We could solve this by excluding all external libraries, including the > hypothetical Word import/export library, from the CA requirement. But would > such arrangement lose most of the benefits of CA that covered everything? My > (perhaps incorrect) understanding of the situation is that many proprietary > derivatives of OOo were shipped without providing any source code under the > LGPL. > If the import/export library was LGPL only then no-one could do such > thing anymore. Not that I understand why avoiding LGPL this way is important > for anyone, but probably the companies have their reasons. These are very good points. At the moment, anyway, all new files are (or should be) contributed in a Mozilla-like three-license fashion[1]. Comparing it with the Mozilla boilerplate [2] from which it is presumably derived, it lacks the final part, but i think it's clear that anyone is free to use the contribution under any one of GPLV3+, LGPV3+ or MPL license. > I'm not totally against the CA. I have signed the JCA for Sun and contributed > some small patches to OOo in a few cases where that was needed to solve some > issue that affected only Finnish users or something similar. But after reading > this discussion and thinking about it I do feel that there is more to win by > not replicating that process for LibreOffice. My feelings are slightly on the other side, for the reasons i told at start, but let's see how this interesting thread will evolve... bye, rob > Harri [1] http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/LibreOffice/LicenseHeader [2] http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/boilerplate-1.1/mpl-tri-license-c -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document Foundation
Hi! On Monday 01 November 2010, Andre Schnabel wrote: > If we want an answer on this (would developers not have joined if there > was a CA) we would need to ask them. This should indeed be asked > at the dev-list. I'd bet, that at least some of them would state > that they not would have joined. I can at least say that I would most likely not have contributed if a CA had been required. "Most likely" means that I would have read the assignment and looked at the organization behind it before making the decision. If they were both solid and there were strong enough justification for it, I would sign. In this case neither the organization nor the assignment text exist yet so I cannot do that. I am not a major contributor so this may not weight much in the final decision. But one rather large problem that I see with the assignments is that if they are required also from developers of external libraries then the assignment would also be needed from developers that may not have any interest in LibreOffice but may still have some common development interest with us. Let's take Word import/export filters for example. They could (at least in theory, I saw the idea somewhere in the Wiki) be split to a separate library and shared with KOffice or someone who wanted to write a free competitor for Google Docs. People developing such libraries might react badly if they would be required to sign a CA just to get a patch in to support a product that they have no personal interest in. One of the strengths of free software is that we can work together on such things even if our own goals were totally different, perhaps even competing. We could solve this by excluding all external libraries, including the hypothetical Word import/export library, from the CA requirement. But would such arrangement lose most of the benefits of CA that covered everything? My (perhaps incorrect) understanding of the situation is that many proprietary derivatives of OOo were shipped without providing any source code under the LGPL. If the import/export library was LGPL only then no-one could do such thing anymore. Not that I understand why avoiding LGPL this way is important for anyone, but probably the companies have their reasons. I'm not totally against the CA. I have signed the JCA for Sun and contributed some small patches to OOo in a few cases where that was needed to solve some issue that affected only Finnish users or something similar. But after reading this discussion and thinking about it I do feel that there is more to win by not replicating that process for LibreOffice. Harri -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document Foundation
Charles-H. Schulz wrote: Hello BRM, Le Thu, 28 Oct 2010 07:12:59 -0700 (PDT), BRM a écrit : - Original Message From: Charles-H. Schulz 4) the notion that we cannot change license because we don't have copyright assignment needs to be put to rest once and for all today. There is a very simple explanation with respect to this [big snip] Perhaps the way around that is to require those contributing TDF to use the "or later" language; though some may not want to. Even without copyright assignment the only thing standing in the way of changing the license - whether to LGPLv4 or even GPLv3 or whatever else - is getting the permission of _all_ the copyright holders. Good objection indeed! Actually, the problem is partly solved, since we now license our software under "LGPL v3 or later". At least it would be solved for the LGPL side of things. But my real answer here though, is perhaps more provocative: if Oracle changes the licence, do we really care? for the 3.3 we stick to the codebase of OOo, but I'm unsure we'll stick that much to it in further releases. In fact, I can already point out, looking at our development activity, that we're not taking the path of being "OpenOffice.org, just recompiled by the community". I think as the time will go by, we will diverge more and more and end up becoming quite different software. >From what I understand this is already impossible to do under Linux due to deaths of at least one contributor. Yes, and in this case a rewrite is needed. this can work in practice for small addendum, but what about bigger one? That may take some time. I implemented PDF/A-1a in OOo around 3 years ago (http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS/entry/news_in_pdfexport), rewriting it from scratch would not be a quick matter. And, my personal opinion only, years back I signed the then Sun (J)CA, I will sign a TDF one or similar without problem. May be the CA should be on a voluntary basis. Just my 0,02 as a dev, and not a lawyer. beppec56 -- Kind Regards, Giuseppe Castagno Acca Esse http://www.acca-esse.eu giuseppe.castagno at acca-esse.eu beppec56 at openoffice.org -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document Foundation
Hi Andrea, ( just to mention: I did not make my mind on this yet, I'm just providing some thoughts) > Von: Andrea Pescetti > An: discuss@documentfoundation.org > > The paperwork was only a practical detail: not relinquising your > > copyright is the most important. > > I haven't seen any new contributor write that they joined because of > (the refusal of) a copyright agreement; while I have seen several new > contributors write that they started contributing because the "Easy > Hacks" were so easy that they didn't require any previous technical > knowledge. If we want an answer on this (would developers not have joined if there was a CA) we would need to ask them. This should indeed be asked at the dev-list. I'd bet, that at least some of them would state that they not would have joined. > > Do you need an example? Think of a "happy ending" where, to the benefit > of users, OOo and all derivatives merge in a common project. There are > many stakeholders (Oracle, IBM, Novell, Red Hat, Redflag, the Document > Foundation...) and they might agree on a new, free, license with some > special provisions due to the long history of OOo. Now, without > copyright assignments/agreements every stakeholder would be able to join > the unified project except the Document Foundation. By choosing against > copyright assignments/agreements you are killing this dream... And I > can't see how the Document Foundation could realistically say it is open > to discuss with companies in this setting. Ok, got your point. But I (personally) see that this is very unlikely to happen. I might be wrong, but everything I heard from the OOo main sponsor so far indicated that they will never ever debate the CA / licensing issue on a common ground. Anyway - it all depends on the question if developers would sign the CA. And we can only ask developers on this. André -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document Foundation
Charles-H. Schulz wrote: Andrea Pescetti a écrit : Honestly, I believe new developers joined because the bar for contribution was lowered ... the paperwork reduction may have helped too, but I don't see it as the most effective improvement. The paperwork was only a practical detail: not relinquising your copyright is the most important. I haven't seen any new contributor write that they joined because of (the refusal of) a copyright agreement; while I have seen several new contributors write that they started contributing because the "Easy Hacks" were so easy that they didn't require any previous technical knowledge. So, unless this theory can be supported by numbers, the mere refusal of copyright assignments/agreements does not seem to me the reason why new contributors were attracted. So we do take for granted that Oracle will not contribute to the Document Foundation, because that's what Oracle clearly implied in their last press release and what they told us (informally). This has to be very clear from now on. We are still open for future discussions, of course, but what you seem to imply is that conditions for a cooperation would require the document foundation to assign copyright (the contributions of the LibreOffice developers) back to Oracle again. No, I never thought this, let alone write, let alone imply. if we find a way to cooperate, I can assure you that the condition will not be that we give our copyright to Oracle. Of course. I'll retry. If the Document Foundation wants to live in the real world, it will have to discuss with companies that work on OpenOffice.org and its derivatives (and this is peculiar to the OpenOffice.org codebase, so examples taken from elsewhere might not fit). Now, without copyright assignment/agreement (granted by the LibreOffice developers to the Document Foundation), the Document Foundation will be in the awkward situation I described: it manages a product (LibreOffice) but cannot represent the LibreOffice developers since it doesn't own the code. This makes it a weaker player: if the Document Foundation MANAGED, say, 20% of the "OOo+LibreOffice" code, then its "weight" in talks with corporations can be proportional to it. But if it merely REPRESENTS 20% of the code but still any decisions must be ratified by the individual developers, its "weight" will be much lower. Do you need an example? Think of a "happy ending" where, to the benefit of users, OOo and all derivatives merge in a common project. There are many stakeholders (Oracle, IBM, Novell, Red Hat, Redflag, the Document Foundation...) and they might agree on a new, free, license with some special provisions due to the long history of OOo. Now, without copyright assignments/agreements every stakeholder would be able to join the unified project except the Document Foundation. By choosing against copyright assignments/agreements you are killing this dream... And I can't see how the Document Foundation could realistically say it is open to discuss with companies in this setting. Regards, Andrea Pescetti. -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document Foundation
Hello Andrea, Le Sat, 30 Oct 2010 17:10:07 +0200, Andrea Pescetti a écrit : > Charles-H. Schulz wrote: > > We initially agreed not to request the assignment of copyright for > > code contributions, and we can only witness that it's been so far > > the right decision: Many developers have joined us and contribute > > Honestly, I believe new developers joined because the bar for > contribution was lowered to the point that anyone who can use a text > editor can contribute to the code, even if he is unable to build > LibreOffice. The Easy Hacks were a nice way to attract new people. Of > course the paperwork reduction may have helped too, but I don't see > it as the most effective improvement. The paperwork was only a practical detail: not relinquising your copyright is the most important. > > > 3) ... In the CVS (and even SVN) there was a real hierarchy. ... > > BTW; LibreOffice uses Git, which is a distributed SCM. > > So did (and still does) OpenOffice.org with Mercurial, another > distributed SCM. But I don't believe this is relevant. > > > 4) the notion that we cannot change license because we don't have > > copyright assignment needs to be put to rest once and for all today. > > There is a very simple explanation with respect to this issue; ask > > any lawyer and he/she will confirm this: Sun/Oracle has licensed > > the OOo code under LGPL v3. They could have put "LGPL v3 or later" > > or "LGPL v3 or +". But they didn't. And that's what makes > > impossible to turn OOo into a different license unless the sole > > copyright owner agrees to change it, which is unlikely with Oracle. > > Well, if you take for granted that cooperation between Oracle and the > Document Foundation will forever be impossible then you are right. > But who knows what will happen in months, years? If Oracle changes > attitude and wants to discuss licensing with the Document Foundation, > the Document Foundation will be in the awkward position of > "representing" the LibreOffice developers only in theory, because any > agreement would then need to be confirmed with every developer; while > with a copyright agreement/assignment in place, the Document > Foundation could effectively represent a measurable percentage of the > codebase, and its opinion be weighed accordingly. So we do take for granted that Oracle will not contribute to the Document Foundation, because that's what Oracle clearly implied in their last press release and what they told us (informally). This has to be very clear from now on. We are still open for future discussions, of course, but what you seem to imply is that conditions for a cooperation would require the document foundation to assign copyright (the contributions of the LibreOffice developers) back to Oracle again. Well this is something that will never ever happen. If Oracle wants to work with us, if we find a way to cooperate, I can assure you that the condition will not be that we give our copyright to Oracle. Everybody can keep its own copyright and it will be a very healthy situation. Best, Charles. > > Best regards, >Andrea Pescetti. > -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document Foundation
Charles-H. Schulz wrote: We initially agreed not to request the assignment of copyright for code contributions, and we can only witness that it's been so far the right decision: Many developers have joined us and contribute Honestly, I believe new developers joined because the bar for contribution was lowered to the point that anyone who can use a text editor can contribute to the code, even if he is unable to build LibreOffice. The Easy Hacks were a nice way to attract new people. Of course the paperwork reduction may have helped too, but I don't see it as the most effective improvement. 3) ... In the CVS (and even SVN) there was a real hierarchy. ... BTW; LibreOffice uses Git, which is a distributed SCM. So did (and still does) OpenOffice.org with Mercurial, another distributed SCM. But I don't believe this is relevant. 4) the notion that we cannot change license because we don't have copyright assignment needs to be put to rest once and for all today. There is a very simple explanation with respect to this issue; ask any lawyer and he/she will confirm this: Sun/Oracle has licensed the OOo code under LGPL v3. They could have put "LGPL v3 or later" or "LGPL v3 or +". But they didn't. And that's what makes impossible to turn OOo into a different license unless the sole copyright owner agrees to change it, which is unlikely with Oracle. Well, if you take for granted that cooperation between Oracle and the Document Foundation will forever be impossible then you are right. But who knows what will happen in months, years? If Oracle changes attitude and wants to discuss licensing with the Document Foundation, the Document Foundation will be in the awkward position of "representing" the LibreOffice developers only in theory, because any agreement would then need to be confirmed with every developer; while with a copyright agreement/assignment in place, the Document Foundation could effectively represent a measurable percentage of the codebase, and its opinion be weighed accordingly. Best regards, Andrea Pescetti. -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document Foundation
- Original Message > From: todd rme > On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 9:28 AM, BRM wrote: > > > From: Cor Nouws > > > To: discuss@documentfoundation.org > > > Sent: Fri, October 29, 2010 2:22:03 AM > > > Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document > > > BRM wrote (29-10-10 00:41) > > > >> BRM wrote: > > > >>> The Linux Kernel guys don't require it; KDE E.v. does. Both methods > > have > > > >>> their pros and cons. > > > >> > > > >> Hi, just a very small correction here - KDE e.V. does not require > > > >> it, it is optional to sign their FLA (a trait shared among other > > > >> FLOSS projects, e.g. the Python Foundation acts similarly). > > > > > > > > Thank you for the correction. I thought they did from what I had read > > a > > >while > > > > back. > > > > Yet another method to accomplish the same goal. > > > > > > What would be the use of people giving the option to share a CA or not. > > Just > > >the fact that, in case for e.g. a licence update, you only have to > > contact x% > > >of the contributors? > > > > It certainly reduces the burden. Otherwise you have to contact 100% of > > contributors, not all of which may be easy to find if at all. > > I don't mean to be morbid, but they may not even be alive. > Which when we discover, may be good to offer the estate - the ability to hand-off copyright assignment so that: i) the estate can completely close out ii) the estate won't have to worry about being questioned about it in the future iii) the estate may not be aware of it to start with and may get closed out without anything happening; in which case local law determines what happens (yet another headache) Iv) the estate or successor-in-interest may not understand the question IANAL, $0.02 Ben -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document Foundation
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 9:28 AM, BRM wrote: > - Original Message > > > From: Cor Nouws > > To: discuss@documentfoundation.org > > Sent: Fri, October 29, 2010 2:22:03 AM > > Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document > Foundation > > > > Hi all, > > > > BRM wrote (29-10-10 00:41) > > > > > >> From: Thorsten Behrens > > >> > > >> BRM wrote: > > >>> The Linux Kernel guys don't require it; KDE E.v. does. Both methods > have > > >>> their pros and cons. > > >> > > >> Hi, just a very small correction here - KDE e.V. does not require > > >> it, it is optional to sign their FLA (a trait shared among other > > >> FLOSS projects, e.g. the Python Foundation acts similarly). > > > > > > Thank you for the correction. I thought they did from what I had read > a > >while > > > back. > > > Yet another method to accomplish the same goal. > > > > What would be the use of people giving the option to share a CA or not. > Just > >the fact that, in case for e.g. a licence update, you only have to > contact x% > >of the contributors? > > It certainly reduces the burden. Otherwise you have to contact 100% of > contributors, not all of which may be easy to find if at all. > I don't mean to be morbid, but they may not even be alive. -Todd -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document Foundation
- Original Message > From: Cor Nouws > To: discuss@documentfoundation.org > Sent: Fri, October 29, 2010 2:22:03 AM > Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document Foundation > > Hi all, > > BRM wrote (29-10-10 00:41) > > > >> From: Thorsten Behrens > >> > >> BRM wrote: > >>> The Linux Kernel guys don't require it; KDE E.v. does. Both methods have > >>> their pros and cons. > >> > >> Hi, just a very small correction here - KDE e.V. does not require > >> it, it is optional to sign their FLA (a trait shared among other > >> FLOSS projects, e.g. the Python Foundation acts similarly). > > > > Thank you for the correction. I thought they did from what I had read a >while > > back. > > Yet another method to accomplish the same goal. > > What would be the use of people giving the option to share a CA or not. Just >the fact that, in case for e.g. a licence update, you only have to contact x% >of the contributors? It certainly reduces the burden. Otherwise you have to contact 100% of contributors, not all of which may be easy to find if at all. Ben -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document Foundation
Hi all, BRM wrote (29-10-10 00:41) From: Thorsten Behrens BRM wrote: The Linux Kernel guys don't require it; KDE E.v. does. Both methods have their pros and cons. Hi, just a very small correction here - KDE e.V. does not require it, it is optional to sign their FLA (a trait shared among other FLOSS projects, e.g. the Python Foundation acts similarly). Thank you for the correction. I thought they did from what I had read a while back. Yet another method to accomplish the same goal. What would be the use of people giving the option to share a CA or not. Just the fact that, in case for e.g. a licence update, you only have to contact x% of the contributors? Regards, Cor -- - giving openoffice.org its foundation :: The Document Foundation - -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document Foundation
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 9:18 AM, Charles-H. Schulz < charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org> wrote: > Hello all, (apologies for this quite long email) > > I would like to discuss a bit the position of the Document Foundation > with respect to copyright assignments. I understand there have been > questions here and there about this topic, and it's perhaps necessary > to explain our position. > > We initially agreed not to request the assignment of copyright for code > contributions, and we can only witness that it's been so far the right > decision: Many developers have joined us and contribute to the > LibreOffice codebase or extend it by localizing it and testing > LibreOffice. > > We knew ever since the beginning that imposing a copyright assignment > would be a big minus for developers. For one thing, it represents > complexity for developers, and on the other hand, the experience we had > with the copyright assignment under the stewardship of Oracle speaks > for itself. It is also worth noting that in practical terms, the bulk > of the LibreOffice codebase, that is, everything except our new > patches, our new code, the localizations, the hacks, etc. is still > under copyright from Oracle. Also, as a warning of sorts, keep in mind > that copyright assignments are not the same thing as software licenses. > > I am going to write below some of the reasons why I also think that not > having a copyright assignment is either a good idea or does not really > matter at all. > > 1) no one has yet been able to clearly articulate what advantage we > would gain by having one for TDF. For instance, it's not at all clear, > and is in fact quite likely than any major software vendor would be > shunned away from our project if we had a copyright assignment: it > would basically mean that we would own their "intellectual property", > and I'm not so sure it flies well with corporate lawyers in charge of > protecting it. > > 2) the state of the art in terms of such assignments is changing > rapidly. We stand at a corner of FOSS history, where the realization > that projects led by one vendor only tend to fail, unless the vendor > itself puts others in charge of the projects and gives free reins to > its community. Look at what's happening with Fedora with respect to > its ditching of copyright assignments. Experiences in other projects > show that the "protection" that such assignments provide is at best > minimal, and most of the times quickly abused, most of the time by its > steward. > > 3) copyright assignments are not blocking the reuse of code or > anything similar; there are several reasons for this, but one which is > practical: a few years ago, you had a central branch with a tool like > CVS. In the CVS (and even SVN) there was a real hierarchy. There was my > branch and you were contributing to it. Now, many projects use similar > tools, except that they are in fact quite different: they are > distributed: there are as many different copies as there are > developers; and the choice is social (people agree on what's best or > respect the guy who has the biggest beard or something like this). So > people create a big heap of code, and if they want to create their own > stuff in their own corner, they do it; they don't deal with > hierarchies, and paperwork. If they're not happy, they leave. That's > how it works today. BTW; LibreOffice uses Git, which is a distributed > SCM. > > 4) the notion that we cannot change license because we don't have > copyright assignment needs to be put to rest once and for all today. > There is a very simple explanation with respect to this issue; ask any > lawyer and he/she will confirm this: Sun/Oracle has licensed the OOo > code under LGPL v3. They could have put "LGPL v3 or later" or "LGPL v3 > or +". But they didn't. And that's what makes impossible to turn OOo > into a different license unless the sole copyright owner agrees to > change it, which is unlikely with Oracle. > > 5) based on my 4) point, you can object that without a copyright > assignment, we would be stuck with the same license for ever, since we > would not be able to decide to change the license of our lines of > code. In fact, the problem lies in the heap of code we would have to > change in order to be able to turn the whole code into something > else... but here's what the developers of LibreOffice did: they simply > didn't change the license, they started to license their own changes > under the same license (LGPL V3)... and added : "or +" after it. So the > license will change or at least be modified that way. But what if we > want to change the whole thing? well, we'll contact all the authors who > got their code into LibreOffice. We have their emails, etc. And if some > of them don't agree with us, then perhaps we'll have to redevelop their > own code. > > 6) there is also a confusion between copyright assignment and copyright > protection. True, when you assign code to the FSF, you do expect to be > leg
Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document Foundation
- Original Message > From: Thorsten Behrens > To: discuss@documentfoundation.org > Sent: Thu, October 28, 2010 5:37:19 PM > Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document Foundation > > BRM wrote: > > The Linux Kernel guys don't require it; KDE E.v. does. Both methods have >their > > > pros and cons. > > > Hi, just a very small correction here - KDE e.V. does not require > it, it is optional to sign their FLA (a trait shared among other > FLOSS projects, e.g. the Python Foundation acts similarly). > Thank you for the correction. I thought they did from what I had read a while back. Yet another method to accomplish the same goal. Ben -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document Foundation
BRM wrote: > The Linux Kernel guys don't require it; KDE E.v. does. Both methods have > their > pros and cons. > Hi, just a very small correction here - KDE e.V. does not require it, it is optional to sign their FLA (a trait shared among other FLOSS projects, e.g. the Python Foundation acts similarly). Cheers, -- Thorsten -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document Foundation
- Original Message > From: Charles-H. Schulz > Le Thu, 28 Oct 2010 07:12:59 -0700 (PDT), > BRM a écrit : > > > From: Charles-H. Schulz > > > 4) the notion that we cannot change license because we don't have > > > copyright assignment needs to be put to rest once and for all > > > today. There is a very simple explanation with respect to this > > > issue; ask any lawyer and he/she will confirm this: Sun/Oracle has > > > licensed the OOo code under LGPL v3. They could have put "LGPL v3 > > > or later" or "LGPL v3 or +". But they didn't. And that's what > > > makes impossible to turn OOo into a different license unless the > > > sole copyright owner agrees to change it, which is unlikely with > > > Oracle. > > > > While I like that TDF is not requiring copyright assignment, there is > > one point missing here that is in its favor. > > > > True, Sun/Oracle has currently licensed OOo under LGPLv3. > > But what's to stop them from going to LGPLv4 when it is available? > > Absolutely nothing. At which point TDF may not be able to accept > > changes from OOo any longer assuming it is still possible at that time > > without updating the LO license to be the same or inclusive therein. > > > > Perhaps the way around that is to require those contributing TDF to > > use the "or later" language; though some may not want to. > > > > Even without copyright assignment the only thing standing in the way > > of changing the license - whether to LGPLv4 or even GPLv3 or whatever > > else - is getting the permission of _all_ the copyright holders. > > Good objection indeed! Actually, the problem is partly solved, since we > now license our software under "LGPL v3 or later". At least it would be > solved for the LGPL side of things. But my real answer here though, is > perhaps more provocative: if Oracle changes the licence, do we really > care? for the 3.3 we stick to the codebase of OOo, but I'm unsure we'll > stick that much to it in further releases. In fact, I can already > point out, looking at our development activity, that we're not taking > the path of being "OpenOffice.org, just recompiled by the community". I > think as the time will go by, we will diverge more and more and end up > becoming quite different software. > For the most part, probably not. Though all code coming from OOo is LGPLv3 only, you might for whatever code is shared if LO was to relicense its code under LGPLv4 or later at some point, if only to gain the advantages of the new version of the license from the FSF. And I in no way intended to make it sound as if LO is just a community recompile of OOo; rather, it is the community extension of OOo. Kind of similar to how Andrew Morton and Linus Torvalds both had their own development trees and releases of the Linux Kernel. Linus' is the official kernel, but it equally competed with the mm branch maintained by Andrew Morton. The mm branch typically had everything in Linus' branch plus some other stuff - extra patches, etc. - that Linus is not ready or willing to accept yet.[1] LO, at least at this juncture, is very similar with OOo - it's inherited a huge code base that has to be maintained, and is adding its own stuff. It is wise to incorporate the changes from OOo for any overlap there is if not only so there is a lower level of support required for LO until those parts get written out, etc. The bigger difference here is that LO has to worry about user interface stuff - where Andrew Morton does not. Only time will truly tell how the two products (LO and OOo) diverge; but we shouldn't shut the door or exclude the possibility of continued merges from OOo. As a developer I certainly do like the no copyright assignment; as an organization looking to be able to enforce and update the license as necessary to maintain the product I would prefer the copyright assignment. As I said earlier, both have their pros and cons. I wonder if anyone has ever investigated a middle-ground - a contract between the organization and the developer such that the developer allows the organization to update the license so long as the license meets certain conditions - so the organization can be pro-active concerning license changes, yet doing so without assigning copyright. While IANAL it seems there might be a way to meet both needs. Again, just $0.02. Ben [1] mm tree was closed down several years back. So it's no longer current, but there are still numerous other layers in the Linux development model that do just this still. -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document Foundation
Hello BRM, Le Thu, 28 Oct 2010 07:12:59 -0700 (PDT), BRM a écrit : > - Original Message > > > From: Charles-H. Schulz > > 4) the notion that we cannot change license because we don't have > > copyright assignment needs to be put to rest once and for all > > today. There is a very simple explanation with respect to this > > issue; ask any lawyer and he/she will confirm this: Sun/Oracle has > > licensed the OOo code under LGPL v3. They could have put "LGPL v3 > > or later" or "LGPL v3 or +". But they didn't. And that's what > > makes impossible to turn OOo into a different license unless the > > sole copyright owner agrees to change it, which is unlikely with > > Oracle. > > While I like that TDF is not requiring copyright assignment, there is > one point missing here that is in its favor. > > True, Sun/Oracle has currently licensed OOo under LGPLv3. > But what's to stop them from going to LGPLv4 when it is available? > Absolutely nothing. At which point TDF may not be able to accept > changes from OOo any longer assuming it is still possible at that time > without updating the LO license to be the same or inclusive therein. > > Perhaps the way around that is to require those contributing TDF to > use the "or later" language; though some may not want to. > > Even without copyright assignment the only thing standing in the way > of changing the license - whether to LGPLv4 or even GPLv3 or whatever > else - is getting the permission of _all_ the copyright holders. Good objection indeed! Actually, the problem is partly solved, since we now license our software under "LGPL v3 or later". At least it would be solved for the LGPL side of things. But my real answer here though, is perhaps more provocative: if Oracle changes the licence, do we really care? for the 3.3 we stick to the codebase of OOo, but I'm unsure we'll stick that much to it in further releases. In fact, I can already point out, looking at our development activity, that we're not taking the path of being "OpenOffice.org, just recompiled by the community". I think as the time will go by, we will diverge more and more and end up becoming quite different software. > > >From what I understand this is already impossible to do under Linux > >due to > deaths of at least one contributor. Yes, and in this case a rewrite is needed. > > The main reason projects move towards having copyright assignment is > to be able to keep the licensing language up to date - to use the > latest GPL/LGPL license due to exactly the issue of how hard it is to > track down every contributor and get their permission in should they > want to change the license. At present the bulk of the code is held > by Oracle and such can be most easily changed by garnishing > permission from one entity; though that will not be true for long for > TDF without copyright assignment - in which case there would be two - > TDF and Oracle. > > The Linux Kernel guys don't require it; KDE E.v. does. Both methods > have their pros and cons. > > Ultimately, as long as TDF and the community are aware and accept > what may occur should Oracle radically change the license it doesn't > really matter. exactly. > > Just pointing out it's a little more complex than Oracle is not > likely to change the license since they very well could. Fortunately > they cannot do it retroactively, at least with the LGPL. > > $0.02 > Thanks! Charles. > Ben > > P.S. IANAL and such disclaimers. This is just from what I have > learned from years of watching the community and the licensing topics. > > -- Charles-H. Schulz Membre du Comité exécutif The Document Foundation. -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document Foundation
Charles-H. Schulz wrote: 4) the notion that we cannot change license because we don't have copyright assignment needs to be put to rest once and for all today. There is a very simple explanation with respect to this issue; ask any lawyer and he/she will confirm this: Sun/Oracle has licensed the OOo code under LGPL v3. They could have put "LGPL v3 or later" or "LGPL v3 or +". But they didn't. And that's what makes impossible to turn OOo into a different license unless the sole copyright owner agrees to change it, which is unlikely with Oracle. In LGPL v3, clause 2, letter b) is written: "then you may convey a copy of the modified version: [...] under the GNU ***GPL***, with none of the additional permissions of this License applicable to that copy.". It's the "LGPL to GPL upgrade clause" of LGPL 2.1 revisited. A choice is still possible, between LGPL and GPL. I don't want to start a religion war, so I'm just stating that a licensing change it's still possible. :) About the rest of your message, I largely agree with you, although a written statement from code contributors in which it's written "I'm the only author and I own the copyright and any other derived right related to my contributed code" would be really a good thing before starting a "TDF labelled" distribution of LibO. It'd be to prevent distribution liability for TDF or its founders or its members in case of unlawful contribution from third parties. You know it and you've written it too: lawyers love deep pockets when suing... ;-) Regards, -- Gianluca Turconi -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document Foundation
- Original Message > From: Charles-H. Schulz > 4) the notion that we cannot change license because we don't have > copyright assignment needs to be put to rest once and for all today. > There is a very simple explanation with respect to this issue; ask any > lawyer and he/she will confirm this: Sun/Oracle has licensed the OOo > code under LGPL v3. They could have put "LGPL v3 or later" or "LGPL v3 > or +". But they didn't. And that's what makes impossible to turn OOo > into a different license unless the sole copyright owner agrees to > change it, which is unlikely with Oracle. While I like that TDF is not requiring copyright assignment, there is one point missing here that is in its favor. True, Sun/Oracle has currently licensed OOo under LGPLv3. But what's to stop them from going to LGPLv4 when it is available? Absolutely nothing. At which point TDF may not be able to accept changes from OOo any longer assuming it is still possible at that time without updating the LO license to be the same or inclusive therein. Perhaps the way around that is to require those contributing TDF to use the "or later" language; though some may not want to. Even without copyright assignment the only thing standing in the way of changing the license - whether to LGPLv4 or even GPLv3 or whatever else - is getting the permission of _all_ the copyright holders. >From what I understand this is already impossible to do under Linux due to deaths of at least one contributor. The main reason projects move towards having copyright assignment is to be able to keep the licensing language up to date - to use the latest GPL/LGPL license due to exactly the issue of how hard it is to track down every contributor and get their permission in should they want to change the license. At present the bulk of the code is held by Oracle and such can be most easily changed by garnishing permission from one entity; though that will not be true for long for TDF without copyright assignment - in which case there would be two - TDF and Oracle. The Linux Kernel guys don't require it; KDE E.v. does. Both methods have their pros and cons. Ultimately, as long as TDF and the community are aware and accept what may occur should Oracle radically change the license it doesn't really matter. Just pointing out it's a little more complex than Oracle is not likely to change the license since they very well could. Fortunately they cannot do it retroactively, at least with the LGPL. $0.02 Ben P.S. IANAL and such disclaimers. This is just from what I have learned from years of watching the community and the licensing topics. -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
[tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document Foundation
Hello all, (apologies for this quite long email) I would like to discuss a bit the position of the Document Foundation with respect to copyright assignments. I understand there have been questions here and there about this topic, and it's perhaps necessary to explain our position. We initially agreed not to request the assignment of copyright for code contributions, and we can only witness that it's been so far the right decision: Many developers have joined us and contribute to the LibreOffice codebase or extend it by localizing it and testing LibreOffice. We knew ever since the beginning that imposing a copyright assignment would be a big minus for developers. For one thing, it represents complexity for developers, and on the other hand, the experience we had with the copyright assignment under the stewardship of Oracle speaks for itself. It is also worth noting that in practical terms, the bulk of the LibreOffice codebase, that is, everything except our new patches, our new code, the localizations, the hacks, etc. is still under copyright from Oracle. Also, as a warning of sorts, keep in mind that copyright assignments are not the same thing as software licenses. I am going to write below some of the reasons why I also think that not having a copyright assignment is either a good idea or does not really matter at all. 1) no one has yet been able to clearly articulate what advantage we would gain by having one for TDF. For instance, it's not at all clear, and is in fact quite likely than any major software vendor would be shunned away from our project if we had a copyright assignment: it would basically mean that we would own their "intellectual property", and I'm not so sure it flies well with corporate lawyers in charge of protecting it. 2) the state of the art in terms of such assignments is changing rapidly. We stand at a corner of FOSS history, where the realization that projects led by one vendor only tend to fail, unless the vendor itself puts others in charge of the projects and gives free reins to its community. Look at what's happening with Fedora with respect to its ditching of copyright assignments. Experiences in other projects show that the "protection" that such assignments provide is at best minimal, and most of the times quickly abused, most of the time by its steward. 3) copyright assignments are not blocking the reuse of code or anything similar; there are several reasons for this, but one which is practical: a few years ago, you had a central branch with a tool like CVS. In the CVS (and even SVN) there was a real hierarchy. There was my branch and you were contributing to it. Now, many projects use similar tools, except that they are in fact quite different: they are distributed: there are as many different copies as there are developers; and the choice is social (people agree on what's best or respect the guy who has the biggest beard or something like this). So people create a big heap of code, and if they want to create their own stuff in their own corner, they do it; they don't deal with hierarchies, and paperwork. If they're not happy, they leave. That's how it works today. BTW; LibreOffice uses Git, which is a distributed SCM. 4) the notion that we cannot change license because we don't have copyright assignment needs to be put to rest once and for all today. There is a very simple explanation with respect to this issue; ask any lawyer and he/she will confirm this: Sun/Oracle has licensed the OOo code under LGPL v3. They could have put "LGPL v3 or later" or "LGPL v3 or +". But they didn't. And that's what makes impossible to turn OOo into a different license unless the sole copyright owner agrees to change it, which is unlikely with Oracle. 5) based on my 4) point, you can object that without a copyright assignment, we would be stuck with the same license for ever, since we would not be able to decide to change the license of our lines of code. In fact, the problem lies in the heap of code we would have to change in order to be able to turn the whole code into something else... but here's what the developers of LibreOffice did: they simply didn't change the license, they started to license their own changes under the same license (LGPL V3)... and added : "or +" after it. So the license will change or at least be modified that way. But what if we want to change the whole thing? well, we'll contact all the authors who got their code into LibreOffice. We have their emails, etc. And if some of them don't agree with us, then perhaps we'll have to redevelop their own code. 6) there is also a confusion between copyright assignment and copyright protection. True, when you assign code to the FSF, you do expect to be legally protected against unpleasant surprises. But developers can also decide they don't like the FSF so you will have lost your effective control over what you develop. One might object, then, that if someone sues you, you would be better off with an enti
