Once again: * This is not a relicensing. This is a cleanup. Copyright and licenses will not change. * Our current headers are broken. New files get added in all the time with incorrect or outdated copyright notices. Some completely new files are still referencing Razor-qt. * As long as we are inconsistent with our headers, this will keep happening. The rules are unclear right now and the goal is to clarify them *and* make them simpler.
I'm dropping this for now due to negative feedback. I'll have a new and more detailed draft up in the coming weeks on this which we'll be able to discuss then. I understand the concerns raised here but please, remember that what we have currently is a lot worse. On 19 August 2015 at 19:41, PCMan <pcman...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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
