On 03/11/2010 Michael Meeks wrote: > I wrote a huge screed on the subject here: > http://people.gnome.org/~michael/blog/copyright-assignment.html > ... If the argument is that there is some negotiation with Oracle that this > makes possible - then, I have to wonder why Oracle is happy to ship > millions of lines of Mozilla code (under the MPL) that they can never > own as part of the product.
Yes, more or less that would be my argument. Or, to use your own words (from your article): "If you are faced with aggression from a copyright owner, turn their asymmetry against them: ask them to accept code under the same terms they provide to others. ... Failing that, just soft-fork the project, a-la MariaDB - paradoxically you may want to collect copyright assignment yourself to be able to affect an eventual reconciliation". What I was hoping was that the Document Foundation would act as a "trade union" of developers, and be delegated rights on their code to become a powerful stakeholder in discussing OpenOffice.org and derivatives. I think I have already repeated enough times that by this I do NOT mean that I expect/wish that the Document Foundation gives all the rights to Oracle, of course. But I would expect that, with a copyright agreement in place, it could get more recognition in a possible reconciliation phase than what it can get by merely relying on moral suasion. 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 ***
