Can we compare this to XWiki becoming a project of the Apache Software Foundation?
It seems to have everything, except that code is APL instead of LGPL. Among the advantages are that the foundation exists (and, I think, has affiliates in multiple countries) and that the license, I feel, slightly more open. They require CLA pretty early and this has rarely been a problem, as far as I know. I agree with your opinion on brand... I do not know what it would mean if going to the ASF (that might be the toughest). Paul Le 24 janv. 2013 à 02:21, Caleb James DeLisle a écrit : > It looks like we're not too interested in migrating away from the LGPL2, > this can be brought up later if warranted. > > I really hope we don't have to put an evil lawyer document in > everyone's face because they want to fix a bug. Not only does it hurt > us but it hurts open source because it encourages others follow suit > using mean language against those who try to help the community. > > I'll address concerns leading to desire for a CLA in order: > > > -------------- > People contributing code which isn't theirs: > > The issue with people contributing code which isn't theirs is ugly and > there is no real end to the mess, copyright assignment doesn't help > much. If an employee writes code on company time, it's the company's not > theirs, they can't open source it without company permission but they > can't transfer it either so the CLA is technically worthless. > > A few interesting discussions on the topic: > http://ezinearticles.com/?Contributor-License-Agreements,-and-the-Effects-of-the-Devil-aka-SCO > http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/4/8/22291/81741 > > It looks like if someone wants to stage an SCO style lawsuit barrage, > there is no magic bullet to make them go away. Additionally, given recent > cases, they would probably choose to use frivolous patent litigation > instead. > > Since the point about employers is only able to help remind the > contributor that they need to have permission to use contribute code > which they contribute, we could devise a new license header since nobody > could reasonably claim to have contributed to the project without > noticing the header. If they proceed anyway, a signature is cold comfort. > > > -------------- > An organization to sue those who violate the LGPL: > > I'm not sure if this is necessary since copyright violations carry such > a ridiculous penalty that in the event of an LGPL violator, even one > developer could retroactively license his code to an organization which > means to sue the violator (the violator's competitors would probably be > lining up). In any case, an optional and limited license transfer would > be a good solution, even if only a few committers sign it, it would > cover a large amount of code. > > > -------------- > Brand Management: > > I'm not going to talk to this very much because the brand is a high > value item and I wouldn't do anything without consulting a lawyer. > FWIW I think Ludovic's current approach of holding it in his own name > is wise. > > > -------------- > Donation management: > > This is my addition, a Foundation would allow companies and people to > make tax deductible donations to support the development of XWiki and > could help with securing development grants. For a philanthropist, > that might mean cash but for an ISP that might mean a donation of > hosting or Jenkins machines. This is relatively complex but I am > thinking about starting such a foundation here in Massachusetts for > supporting many open projects instead of only one. > Of course this doesn't require a CLA. > > > ------------- > The use case which I forgot: > > Did I miss anything? > > > > Is this a fair evaluation of the use cases and possibilities? > Is there anything to add? > > Thanks, > Caleb > > > On 01/21/2013 10:41 AM, Vincent Massol wrote: >> >> On Jan 21, 2013, at 4:27 PM, Ludovic Dubost <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I agree Caleb, a CLA needs a purpose. Now we don't necessarly need to have >>> in the CLA what we usually find (a copyright assignment). >>> What we need is for instance an agreement to publish the code as open >>> source. >>> >>> Now giving more rights to the "XWiki Project" (as a legal entity) could >>> have some benefits beyond changing the licence (which could be useful in >>> case the licence for any reasons has some legal issues). >>> >>> These benefits are: >>> >>> - have an entity that can defend wrongful usages of the code beyond the >>> initial copyright owners >>> - guarantee the rights of all users of XWiki >>> - clarify the way the XWiki brand is allowed to be used >>> >>> On the subject of the XWiki Brand, currently the brand is owned by me >>> personally. As part for instance as setting up a foundation I could assign >>> a right to use the XWiki brand as part of the open source code for the >>> XWiki project, as long as the open source principles are still maintained. >>> This would clarify the rights and protect the committers and the project. >>> >>> I'm +1 for a foundation, and a light CLA. The foundation should have it's >>> open source principles written in stone. >>> On the ability to change the licence it's something that is worth a >>> discussion. >> >> Indeed, and the CLA is not just about changing the license, it's also about >> ensuring that contributors have the right to contribute what they contribute >> and that the project won't be endangered because of a commit that is not >> legal. >> >> Thanks >> -Vincent >> >>> Ludovic >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 2013/1/19 Caleb James DeLisle <[email protected]> >>> >>>> Hi Vincent, >>>> >>>> The only reason I see for a CLA is to allow the organization to relicense >>>> the >>>> code under a different license. Being difficult to re-license makes the >>>> project more stable and I don't see any major problems with the LGPL. >>>> >>>> The idea that "every project needs a CLA" which seems to be implied by >>>> oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/cla is easily dispelled by the fact that Linux, >>>> one of the largest and most successful FOSS projects in the world, requires >>>> only a promise that the contributor are able to license the code under GPL. >>>> >>>> What are your reasons for the CLA proposal? >>>> >>>> In the case of the node.js license, you are forced to grant Joyent inc >>>> permission to license your work any way they see fit, including >>>> proprietary. >>>> This makes node.js project subject to the whim of Joyent's directors. >>>> >>>> From a technical perspective, extracting a signature from everyone who has >>>> ever contributed a patch to XWiki would be very difficult and there would >>>> inevitably remain code within the codebase which was not transferred. >>>> >>>> On the point of SF Conservancy and SPI, I would be guarded about >>>> transferring a license to an organization until I knew the organization >>>> (who runs it, what internal controls does it have) and had an assessment of >>>> the dollar value of such a transfer. Just to pull out a number, the >>>> codebase is probably worth somewhere in the 10's of millions of $. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Fortunately we're all pretty friendly in this community so a lot of the >>>> darker what-if's just never come up but I think we should still remain >>>> vigilant about new legal structures, especially if they involve putting >>>> trust in people who none of us know. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Caleb >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 01/17/2013 05:19 AM, Vincent Massol wrote: >>>>> Hi devs, >>>>> >>>>> I'd like to propose the following: >>>>> * That we start asking for a CLA for contributions (and also for current >>>> committers) >>>>> * That we keep the process lightweight in order to not make it harder to >>>> contribute to the xwiki project. For this I propose to use >>>> http://www.clahub.com/ >>>>> >>>>> In order to understand why we need a CLA read: >>>>> * http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/cla >>>>> * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributor_License_Agreement >>>>> >>>>> If we agree we then need to define our CLA. I think a good starting >>>> point could be the Node.js one: >>>>> http://nodejs.org/cla.html >>>>> >>>>> Now I don't think the CLA will have any legal value if we cannot define >>>> "the XWiki project" as a legal entity. >>>>> >>>>> Thus I believe we need to start by joining some foundation or creating >>>> one. >>>>> >>>>> I'll list some easy possibilities: >>>>> * SF Conservancy: http://sfconservancy.org/members/current/ >>>>> * SPI: http://www.spi-inc.org/projects/ >>>>> * Create our own Not for profit association >>>>> >>>>> Harder possibilities (need to change license, rename project, etc): >>>>> * Join ASF >>>>> * Join Eclipse (and be forced to use bugzilla as the issue tracker ;)) >>>>> >>>>> We also need to check if OW2 could offer that service of being a legal >>>> entity for XWiki. >>>>> >>>>> Personally I'm tempted more by our own association (it's quite easy to >>>> create one if we don't need to accept money and a bit more complex if we >>>> want to accept money but still doable). My second choice goes to SFC. >>>>> >>>>> WDYT? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> -Vincent >> >> _______________________________________________ >> devs mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs >> > > _______________________________________________ > devs mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
