No, I'm also -1 on this one. Copyright owner and license agreement are different issues. The license enable users to utilize the code freely. The copyright owner, however, is the only one who can legally re-license that piece of code. Though all parts of the code are under the same license in the same project, it really matters that who is the copyright owner of each part. For example, you write some code for LXQt, and license it under LGPL. Someday, one of your customer want to use it in his proprietary software. Since you are the copyright owner, you can re-license that piece of code to MIT or whatever license for him. If the copyright is owned by "LXQt team", legally that should mean everyone in the team must agree with the re-licensing. Otherwise you don't have the right to do it. FYI: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs It's good practice to retain the name of copyright holder of each file in its header. This convention is followed by tons of projects. Listing everybody in AUTHORS is just not as good.
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 2:15 AM, Jerome Leclanche <jer...@leclan.ch> wrote: > The "LXQt contributors" list would be kept up in an AUTHORS file, > Luis. We don't need to be an entity nor to require a CLA to track > authorship. > > See how Wine does it, for example (and they're a much, much older > project than us with a lot more contributors): > > https://source.winehq.org/git/wine.git/blob/cfbc37c699e3b3b27df4c566014e6dde9c7194b8:/AUTHORS > > And where did the "relicensing" come from? The license itself is > unaffected - this is only relevant for copyright purposes. > > I'd really like us to fix those headers and tackle problems one at a > time, please. What we currently have is neither correct nor up to the > task - a lot of our headers are incorrect, pasted from other modules, > or even display the wrong license. > > J. Leclanche > > On 18 August 2015 at 20:03, Luís Pereira <luis.artur.pere...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > After some reading and talking, to people that knows a lot more than > > myself, I arrived to the following conclusions: > > * Using the LXQt contributors way implies that we will have no means > > to enforce it. LXQt contributors is not an legal entity. If it were a > > legal entity, CLA signing would be needed. > > * Who is entitled to do licence changes in the LXQt contributors model > > ? Anyone ? Can someone make a couple of contributions and then fork > > and change the licence ? > > > > Paulo and Palo are Ok with the proposed change. I'm not. > > Sorry, but I will continue putting myself as the copyright holder. I'm > > not happy with the perspective of someone that didn't do squat being > > able to relicence the code. > > > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 10:37 AM, Luís Pereira > > <luis.artur.pere...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I'm sympathetic to this effort. Worst than the model being broken, > >> it's copyright law and specially It's practice that's broken. > >> IADNAL also. In our circumstances, I don't know of any solution that > >> achieve the desired goals and provides an valid copyright. IADNAL > >> > >> I'm reading this to educate myself: > >> http://opensource.org/faq > >> > http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2012/ManagingCopyrightInformation.html > >> http://producingoss.com > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Jerome Leclanche <jer...@leclan.ch> > wrote: > >>> Thanks for the feedback guys. > >>> > >>> Regarding the "LXQt contributors" not being a legal entity: I hear the > >>> concern. The goal is to word it in such a way that the copyright is > >>> broadly applied to whoever contributed to the project. I think my > >>> current proposal covers this but I'm open to suggestions. > >>> > >>> The way I see it, the current model is broken either way. Anybody can > >>> just come in and modify the copyright header, add their names to it > >>> after fixing a typo or some such. And other devs who work on the other > >>> 99.9% of the code won't necessarily bother to add their name. > >>> > >>> I'm going off my limited knowledge of copyright law here, and IADNAL > >>> :) I'd love to hear other proposals, as long as they follow the main > >>> goals: > >>> > >>> - Shrink the headers as much as possible > >>> - Standardize them > >>> - Remove the need to ever change them > >>> > >>> J. Leclanche > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Luís Pereira > > > > > > > > -- > > Luís Pereira > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Lxde-list mailing list > Lxde-list@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lxde-list >
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Lxde-list mailing list Lxde-list@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lxde-list
