On Tue, 2008-01-22 at 00:05 +0900, Jean-Christophe Helary wrote:
> But now that I think about it, since SUN holds the copyright to the
> code it would be actually possible for SUN to make modifications to
> the code without releasing it and that may well happen in StarOffice.
Sure - s
Le 5 févr. 08 à 17:30, Michael Meeks a écrit :
On Tue, 2008-01-22 at 00:05 +0900, Jean-Christophe Helary wrote:
But now that I think about it, since SUN holds the copyright to the
code it would be actually possible for SUN to make modifications to
the code without releasing it and that may we
> > Sure - so (it seems to me) rather hard for anyone except Sun to
> > prosecute an LGPL violation here -
>
> Indeed, they're the copyright holder of the entirety of the code.
> Redmond. In short, criticzing the JCA may be valid, but it's
> particularly unappropriate - or perhaps just pat
Hello Allen,
Le 5 févr. 08 à 19:36, Allen Pulsifer a écrit :
Sure - so (it seems to me) rather hard for anyone except Sun to
prosecute an LGPL violation here -
Indeed, they're the copyright holder of the entirety of the code.
Redmond. In short, criticzing the JCA may be valid, but i
> I am quite
> "amused" -to put things very mildly - to see somebody from
> Novell make
> this kind of arguments. Novell does the same thing, and even worse:
I'm sorry, are you saying the Novell has an open source project for which it
does not accept open source contributions under the same l
Le 5 févr. 08 à 20:37, Allen Pulsifer a écrit :
I am quite
"amused" -to put things very mildly - to see somebody from
Novell make
this kind of arguments. Novell does the same thing, and even worse:
I'm sorry, are you saying the Novell has an open source project for
which it
does not accept
Mi Michael,
Michael Meeks wrote (5-2-2008 17:30)
Sure - so (it seems to me) rather hard for anyone except Sun to
prosecute an LGPL violation here - since it's quite possible that these
guys have a confidential agreement with Sun that makes it perfectly
legal for them to rip off people's
> Heck, even the FSF does that...
You're telling me that the FSF will not accept contributions to an open
source project unless it is given an assignment of copyright that allows it
to license the contribution under any terms it wants, including a commercial
license? Please direct me to the web p
Michael Meeks wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-01-22 at 00:05 +0900, Jean-Christophe Helary wrote:
>> But now that I think about it, since SUN holds the copyright to the
>> code it would be actually possible for SUN to make modifications to
>> the code without releasing it and that may well happen in Sta
> When a developer contributes code to the C# compiler or the
> Mono runtime engine, we require that the author grants Novell
> the right to relicense his/her contribution under other
> licensing terms.
>
> This allows Novell to re-distribute the Mono source code to
> parties that might not wa
Allen,
Le 5 févr. 08 à 21:00, Allen Pulsifer a écrit :
Heck, even the FSF does that...
You're telling me that the FSF will not accept contributions to an
open
source project unless it is given an assignment of copyright that
allows it
to license the contribution under any terms it wants, i
https://www.fsf.org/licensing/assigning.html
https://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/why-assign.html
Martin
Allen Pulsifer wrote:
Heck, even the FSF does that...
You're telling me that the FSF will not accept contributions to an open
source project unless it is given an assignment of copyrigh
Allen Pulsifer schrieb:
>> When a developer contributes code to the C# compiler or the
>> Mono runtime engine, we require that the author grants Novell
>> the right to relicense his/her contribution under other
>> licensing terms.
>>
>> This allows Novell to re-distribute the Mono source code
Hi Cor,
On Tue, 2008-02-05 at 20:57 +0100, Cor Nouws wrote:
> > One of the deep joys of the JCA with it's single steward.
>
> Writing this like you do, reads to me as if you are actually suspecting
> Sun. Is there any clear reason why you do so, or why we should?
> If not, it is a more theor
Hi Michael
Michael Meeks wrote (6-2-2008 12:02)
On Tue, 2008-02-05 at 20:57 +0100, Cor Nouws wrote:
Michael Meeks wrote (5-2-2008 17:30)
Sure - so (it seems to me) rather hard for anyone except Sun to
prosecute an LGPL violation here - since it's quite possible that these
guys have a con
Hi,
"How can we know that is not the case ?"
[ that Sun have not licensed to Butler ]
this is very interesting question.
But completely bad audience. I also don't ask you, Michael, if Novell
has some (other than you know ;-) agreement with Microsoft.
--
Pav
Hi Mathias,
On Wed, 2008-02-06 at 10:33 +0100, Mathias Bauer wrote:
> >| By accepting an SCA, Sun
> >|
> >| * promises that your contributions will remain Free and open-source
> >| software (i.e. will be published and will remain available by Sun
> >| under a Free or open-source software license)
Hi,
On 5.2.2008, at 21:00, Allen Pulsifer wrote:
Heck, even the FSF does that...
You're telling me that the FSF will not accept contributions to an
open
source project
1. I do not know about any open source project FSF maintains
2. yes, FSF doesn't accept e.g. non-paper-worked contribut
Hi Pavel,
On Wed, 2008-02-06 at 12:24 +0100, Pavel Janík wrote:
> > "How can we know that is not the case ?"
> > [ that Sun have not licensed to Butler ]
>
> this is very interesting question.
indeed.
> But completely bad audience.
Sure - well, my think
Pavel Janík wrote:
Hi,
"How can we know that is not the case ?"
[ that Sun have not licensed to Butler ]
this is very interesting question.
There is no agreement with Butler, I handed over this to our legal
department, I will keep you updated,
Martin
---
Ah Charles !
The sound of your typing fills me with joy :-)
On Tue, 2008-02-05 at 18:51 +0100, Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
> > Sure - so (it seems to me) rather hard for anyone except Sun to
> > prosecute an LGPL violation here -
>
> Indeed, they're the copyright holder of the entirety
Michael,
I'm truly sorry you take things in that way. It's not my intent to
criticize you personally, I would never dare to do such a thing.
Just realize that you cannot come out in public by suspecting Sun -or
anybody else- to have ulterior motives without sound arguments, and it
appears y
On Tue, 2008-02-05 at 18:51 +0100, Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
> A quite practical situation, even if the terms of the JCA themselves
> could certainly be improved. But after all you know the benefits of
> such copyright covenants, as Gnome and Evolution provide their
> developers with similar
Hi Mathias,
Good to hear from you again :-)
On Tue, 2008-02-05 at 21:11 +0100, Mathias Bauer wrote:
> It's not so uncommon that the major contributor of a project wants
> to preserve the ability to relicence the code and so requires the
> copyright for code contributions from others.
Hey Hubert,
Le 6 févr. 08 à 15:30, Hubert Figuiere a écrit :
On Tue, 2008-02-05 at 18:51 +0100, Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
A quite practical situation, even if the terms of the JCA themselves
could certainly be improved. But after all you know the benefits of
such copyright covenants, as Gnome a
Michael Meeks schrieb:
> Quite :-) if I worked for Sun, I'm sure it would seem obvious that I
> had the moral right to proprietarily license all other people's code /
> translations / documentation etc. contributed to OO.o in perpetuity. I
> would also be certain that that right would always
Hi Michael,
> OpenOffice project code:
> Sun the only owner: 100%
> LGPL eclectic (or better) ownership: 0%
the "only" is plain not true, as you very well now. The term is *Joint*
copyright Assignment. You don't do your standing a good with repeating
wrong f
Michael Meeks schrieb:
> Hi Mathias,
>
> Good to hear from you again :-)
>
> On Tue, 2008-02-05 at 21:11 +0100, Mathias Bauer wrote:
>> It's not so uncommon that the major contributor of a project wants
>> to preserve the ability to relicence the code and so requires the
>> copyright for c
Hi Michael,
Sorry if this mail appears twice, the first was with a wrong address
Michael Meeks wrote:
[...]
> No, in fact what most disappoints me most today, is the merging
of the
> hostile duplication of Kohei's solver yesterday - despite requests not
> to do so until the (does it even ex
Hi Michael,
Michael Meeks wrote:
[...]
No, in fact what most disappoints me most today, is the merging of the
hostile duplication of Kohei's solver yesterday - despite requests not
to do so until the (does it even exist ?) Advisory Board reports back on
it's meetings. Apparently Sun care
On Wed, 2008-02-06 at 16:31 +0100, Frank Schönheit - Sun Microsystems
Germany wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> > OpenOffice project code:
> > Sun the only owner: 100%
> > LGPL eclectic (or better) ownership: 0%
>
> the "only" is plain not true, as you very well now. The
Michael Meeks schrieb:
>> But a clarification of the implications of the JCA wasn't what Michael
>> Meeks asked for (and BTW also nobody else until now). He pointed at
>> Sun for asking for a JCA without mentioning that his company is doing
>> exactly the same in other projects. I felt the need to
Jonathan Pryor wrote:
> (This was the point to Michael's query about Butler Office -- for all we
> knew, Butler *had* a license from Sun to release it, and there's nothing
> anyone could have done about it it.
Whoever "Butler office" is they had the same licence as all - LGPL. What
makes you thi
Michael Meeks wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-02-06 at 16:55 +0100, Mathias Bauer wrote:
>> Well, I once tried to use Evolution and there are many other reasons
>> that come into my mind why people don't have any interest in it.
>
> Haha :-) I once tried using OpenOffice too, it's user-interface was
Dear Frank,
On Wed, 2008-02-06 at 16:31 +0100, Frank Schönheit Germany wrote:
> > OpenOffice project code:
> > Sun the only owner: 100%
> > LGPL eclectic (or better) ownership: 0%
>
> the "only" is plain not true, as you very well now. The term is *Joint*
> copy
Mr. Meeks,
the means you are using to change the situation (flooding dev@ list with
offtopic) are wrong.
So would you, please, be so kind as to stop distracting developers from
being productive?
Thank you very much for understanding.
Regards,
K. Palagin.
--
On Wed, 2008-02-06 at 15:35 +0100, Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
> but when it comes to Gnome it would be quite surprizing to have no
> copyright assignment.
For the main, copyright assignment has been the exception, rather than
the norm. Gnome, KDE/Koffice, the Linux Kernel, Wine, and thousan
Hi Mathias,
So - since you want to kill the thread, lets try to do that; but first
I must address this:
On Wed, 2008-02-06 at 23:48 +0100, Mathias Bauer wrote:
> What makes you think it could be anything else? Wow, how easy it is to
> get some public interest. It's enough to give others s
Hello Michael,
> I commit it, and wow - we really have a joint ownership ! you are
> right :-) it actually fulfills the definition of 'joint'-ness briefly.
> by revision 1.3 - 'rt' is changing the license - at least this is
> probably only removing headers: so, perhaps I still own it.
Michael Meeks wrote:
> So - since you want to kill the thread, lets try to do that; but first
> I must address this:
I don't want to kill the thread - I'm not even empowered to do that. :-)
Please see at the end of the mail what I wanted to see stopped.
> Unfortunately, reading back,
Allen Pulsifer wrote:
What I would like to consider common sense tells me that of
course you continue to be the owner of the code you
contributed, Caolan continues to be the owner of the code he
contributed...
Apparently you have not read the terms of the copyright assignment.
I think Frank
> What I would like to consider common sense tells me that of
> course you continue to be the owner of the code you
> contributed, Caolan continues to be the owner of the code he
> contributed...
Apparently you have not read the terms of the copyright assignment.
-
> 2. yes, FSF doesn't accept e.g. non-paper-worked contributions to
> free software it maintains, e.g. Emacs.
The obvious point, if we must belabor it, is that an organization like FSF
would "never" take an open source program to which it held an assigned
copyright and re-license it under a comm
> i am speaking as a community member and not as Sun employee ;-)
> Three month ago or so we had more or less the same
> discussion. I thought
> the current situation was clarified and no further discussion is
> necessary until Sun brings it up or if Sun would misuse the copyright.
Thank you f
Allen Pulsifer wrote (7-2-2008 22:48)
the means you are using to change the situation (flooding
dev@ list with offtopic) are wrong.
There is nothing off-topic about this discussion. It is highly relevant to
every developer who is not also an employee of Sun Microsystems.
Hmm, I always though
> The intent is not to mislead, but present the reality.
> I would argue that talk of "Joint", and "Shared" in copyright
> assignments (by
> contrast) is to market the unpleasant fact with meaningless
> friendly sounding terms :-) ie. the plain truth is perhaps
> not quite as obvious as y
> the means you are using to change the situation (flooding
> dev@ list with offtopic) are wrong.
There is nothing off-topic about this discussion. It is highly relevant to
every developer who is not also an employee of Sun Microsystems.
-
Hi,
i am speaking as a community member and not as Sun employee ;-)
Three month ago or so we had more or less the same discussion. I thought
the current situation was clarified and no further discussion is
necessary until Sun brings it up or if Sun would misuse the copyright.
The Butler off
On 7.2.2008, at 23:47, Allen Pulsifer wrote:
i am speaking as a community member and not as Sun employee ;-)
Three month ago or so we had more or less the same
discussion. I thought
the current situation was clarified and no further discussion is
necessary until Sun brings it up or if Sun wo
Hi Juergen,
I really did not want to step into this thread, but:
On Thursday 07 February 2008 23:22, Juergen Schmidt wrote:
> All people who don't like it as it is are free to leave the project and
> should spare us with this kind of discussion as long as the situation
> doesn't change.
Sorry,
Sorry, but this is a really dangerous attitude. Please don't feel
offended,
but it very much reminds me what we used to have in our country in the
communist era. "You don't like it here? Emigrate. And don't be
surprised
if you get shot during that."
Please emigrate to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Allen Pulsifer wrote:
All people who don't like it as it is are free to leave
the project
and should spare us with this kind of discussion as long as the
situation doesn't change.
This attitude is very telling. Some people might think that the whole
reason Sun set up OpenOffice.org is to get
Hi all,
I answer here but this is not an answer to Michael's mail and this is
why I top post.
Please all, there is no need for more provocations. The world is not
perfect, but it can be worse and it has been in the past. May I remember
you that we didn't have the JCA at the beginning of the pr
On Fri, 2008-02-08 at 17:51 +0100, Juergen Schmidt wrote:
> The project simply don't need people like you who has probably never
> contributed one line of code but are very good in this kind of useless
> discussion.
Grief it's a dangerous precedent to start suggesting that people who
cont
Jan Holesovsky wrote:
Hi Juergen,
I really did not want to step into this thread, but:
On Thursday 07 February 2008 23:22, Juergen Schmidt wrote:
All people who don't like it as it is are free to leave the project and
should spare us with this kind of discussion as long as the situation
doesn
Hi Mathias,
On Thu, 2008-02-07 at 16:05 +0100, Mathias Bauer wrote:
> I don't want to kill the thread - I'm not even empowered to do that. :-)
Good 'oh :-) personally I think the discussion is helpful. Jurgen is
right, of course, that we discussed this 3 months ago, and that there
has bee
> I see that Allen wants to continue in developing the project and
> product, so please everyone lets Allen do it...
That would be great. As soon as the project is ready to accept LGPL
contributions, then we can make that happen.
-
> >> All people who don't like it as it is are free to leave
> the project
> >> and should spare us with this kind of discussion as long as the
> >> situation doesn't change.
This attitude is very telling. Some people might think that the whole
reason Sun set up OpenOffice.org is to get free d
All,
Time out.
This flame war is not really a discussion any longer on Butler Office.
It's become a free for all with fire. We all have better things to do.
So: enough blather. No more waste of time. This thread is cut.
Louis
On 2008-02-09, at 24:01 , Michael Meeks wrote:
On Fri, 2008-0
Hi
On 2008-02-09, at 01:12 , sophie wrote:
Hi all,
I answer here but this is not an answer to Michael's mail and this
is why I top post.
Please all, there is no need for more provocations. The world is not
perfect, but it can be worse and it has been in the past. May I
remember you that w
> On Fri, 2008-02-08 at 17:51 +0100, Juergen Schmidt wrote:
> > The project simply don't need people like you who has
> probably never
> > contributed one line of code but are very good in this kind
> of useless
> > discussion.
I must of missed this email (I did notice Michael's reply), but re
61 matches
Mail list logo
