QuantumG wrote:
Not at all. My general statement is that assigning copyright to people
who want that copyright assignment so they can make a proprietary
distribution of the software is bad.
Copyright assignment lowers the risk to the company. They can never
be in a situation where some foolish
Glen Turner wrote:
The only thing that is clear is that the developer needs a
high level of trust in the entity requesting the copyright
assignment. After SCO I'm not sure that any of Ray Noorda's
current or previous activities engenders the necessary level
of trust for me.
Exactly. I just
On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 12:44:50PM +1000, QuantumG wrote:
But that's not the argument. The argument is whether or not the
community would benefit more from having someone like RealNetworks not
demand copyright assignment. I believe they would because any
extensions RealNetworks makes to
Matthew Palmer wrote:
Helix. Which one do you want? No, you can't answer option 1 because Real
isn't going to allow that.
Sorry, I think the correct answer is to fork Helix, implement all the
features that people want. That way when people choose to use Helix
because they want to stream
quote who=QuantumG
I think the real question is, what does the community gain by giving
their copyright to RealNetworks? A proprietary distribution? That's
hardly a plus.
You're making a general statement (that copyright assignment is bad), but
hanging on to a specific example [1]. Look
Jeff Waugh wrote:
You're making a general statement (that copyright assignment is bad), but
Not at all. My general statement is that assigning copyright to people
who want that copyright assignment so they can make a proprietary
distribution of the software is bad. Assigning copyright to
Jeff Waugh wrote:
You're making a general statement (that copyright assignment is bad), but
hanging on to a specific example [1]. Look at other projects that require
copyright assignment, such as Evolution, and see whether the points you make
apply equally.
From the Evolution FAQ:
quote who=QuantumG
The only reason they can do it is because they control the repository.
That's claptrap. It's because their tree has the momentum. If anyone forked,
creating way more momentum (cf. xorg), Novell copyright assignment would no
longer be relevant. But they maintain the
Jeff Waugh wrote:
That's claptrap. It's because their tree has the momentum. If anyone forked,
creating way more momentum (cf. xorg), Novell copyright assignment would no
longer be relevant. But they maintain the momentum, because they've done
nothing wrong by the community, and there's no value
quote who=QuantumG
I think people simply don't have much of an opinion on dual licensing. We
have no idea how many bugs Novel or RealNetworks have fixed in their
proprietary distribution and failed to put into the community
distribution.
Novell don't ship a closed-source version of
Again, this is false. It is *mindshare* and *momentum* that keeps everyone
concentrating on the same branch, not technical quibbles like revision
control methodology. Linux is a good example of mindshare and momentum over
distributed development - the distros all stick to similar branches
11 matches
Mail list logo
