Andrea, Michael,
Le Wed, 17 Nov 2010 00:00:43 +0100, Andrea Pescetti <[email protected]> a écrit : > 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. What do you think of this idea? http://blog.nooku.org/2010/11/nooku-contributor-agreement/ (It does not involve copyright). -- Charles-H. Schulz Membre du Comité exécutif The Document Foundation. -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to [email protected] Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
