> Could you please help me scrutinizing > this agreement to see that there isn't anything in there that > is bad for us?
The agreement looks straightforward and innocuous to me. The only thing I had a question about, and it's minor, is the inclusion of "public information work" in section 2c. A much bigger issue is that the agreement assumes the project has, or will establish, an internal governance structure and we have none. We really need to get our act together and create some kind of reasonable charter and governance structure. Six years ago being the leading implementor of UML 1.3 might have been a great vision, but it's getting a little dated now. The SFC agreement requires a clearly delineated set of authorities for the project. Will it be a single supreme leader or 2/3 majority of all registered developers or simple majority of active developers or ... ? > For those not knowing what this is all about the short recap > is that we have some issues in the project that we have > problems with. Things like, how does our Copyright/License > work, how can someone send monetary contributions to the > project, how shall we accept and handle the money that Google > hopefully will send to us for taking part in the Google > Summer of Code. We are hoping that joining the Software > Freedom Conservancy will solve these problems. My reading of the agreement is that it will *only* affect the mechanics of monetary administration. All other issues, including what licenses we use (as long as they are OSS licenses), what our goals are, how we govern ourselves, are things that that we need to establish ourselves. I think the Software Freedom Conservancy represents a good opportunity for us and we should take advantage of their offer as soon as we can get our internal house in order. Tom --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
