2010/11/3 Michael Meeks <[email protected]>: > > On Tue, 2010-11-02 at 17:28 +0100, Roberto Resoli wrote: >> Copyright Assignment is nor bad nor good, it's a compromise > > I do not see assignment in -any- way as a compromise; but as an > un-necessary extreme.
like mine, it's an opinion, of course ;-) >> i am still waiting to see any reply also to Andrea's proposals >> in another thread [1] > > Oh - I guess I should reply there. thanks >> I agree with Andrea, and I think that all this JCA stuff need a more >> pragmatic approach > > Honestly; the amount of doom mongering I guess that with this term you mean "profecy of disaster", something that in italian we could name "being a Cassandra". I didn't wanted to be a Cassandra; it only seems to me that JCA/CLA and similar issues should be discussed openly, with fresh mind, evaluating pro and con. > in this thread is staggering. > Suddenly we somehow 'discovered' that all FLOSS licenses are > un-enforceable, jurisdictionless, that no-one has really contributed > anything, in any binding way to any eclectically owned FLOSS project[1], > and that only mad people would ship that software :-) No, the issue here regards a really complex project, more than 12 millions lines of code, I guess, that needs a transition from the "umbrella" of Oracle to another model; clearly it's important to conduct the transition in a way that makes feasible to manage the project in the future. > If the rational conclusion of these arguments is that the Linux Kernel, > Mozilla, SAMBA, GNOME, KDE, and by extension -all- Linux distributions > are fundamentally unsafe to ship - then we have a huge and un-fixable > problem; but one that is by far beyond the scope of LibreOffice to fix. I agree; nevertheless, i think we should decide what kind of foundation TDF would be, and if the foundation could effectively join the interests all the subjects interested in LibO (or other projects in the future). Dealing with patent claims is one of things that i think TDF should take care of, without being necessarily "doom mongering". > In particular OpenOffice already has this problem, since it includes > big chunks of Mozilla - which has some form of mild certification of > authenticity - but this only extends to the person doing the committing, > not the code they commit [ from others ] ;-) ie. it is eclectically > owned, and there is no paperwork, or click-through before contributing. > > So at this point, there are two options: > > * throw up arms in dismay, conclude nothing is 'safe', and > wander around desparately trying to aggregate stronger > rights to the entire codebase in various organisations > [ which IMHO aggregates problems with it ]. > Or: > * follow the rest of the world including eg. IBM (who are not > short of lawyers) who already ship eg. Mozilla, SAMBA and > Linux without any of these apparently indispensible > assignments > > ;-) This dicotomy in my opinion is not reflecting the real situation, nor I said that assignments are indispensable. It's a subject should be discussed with all the players. By the way, TDF is still not a player, because it still lacks a legal status .... bye, rob > HTH, > > Michael. > > [1] - eclectically owned projects are, by far, the vast majority of Free > Software projects. > -- > [email protected] <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot -- 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 ***
