> We define this kind of talk : "The immortality of the medusa"
nonsense, I defeated medusa in God of War 2. ;)
blabla aside, what do you think about an NH foundation which owns
the (c) of NH to prevent future debates about all this? or do you think it's
better for NH to leave it 'in the land of unknown' ? (serious question)
FB
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 7:50 AM, Fabio Maulo <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> This is a new record, 80+ mails, but we can do something better.
> At 100 GMail will auto-generate a new thread.
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 7:38 AM, Frans Bouma <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> > AAAAHHHHHHHH!
> >
> > Please Frans, it's nothing personal either, but you're
> obviously not into
> > *GPL licensing that deep. First the claims about the AGPL
> being viral over
> > web service boundaries, and now you tell people that any
> contributor can
> > just revoke their contribution from LGPL usage? Please be
> careful with
> such
> > claims!
>
>
> errr, the contributor OWNS his work by law, and if
the
> contributor
> (still copyright holder!) doesn't want to distribute his
work
> anymore, he's
> entitled to do so. How can a GPL license overrule that law?
It
> can't. I
> simply don't understand why you think a copyright holder
CANT
> revoke
> distribution rights of the work he owns.
>
> About AGPL's clause over webservices, I indeed
> misinterpreted it,
> you're right, I'm not.
>
>
> > Once you grant a license such as the GPL or LGPL, it
cannot
> be withdrawn.
> > You can stop distributing it under that license, you can
> release new
> > versions without that license (if you own all necessary
> rights), but you
> > cannot prevent other people from using the previously
> released code based
> > upon the license it was released under.
>
>
> It's debatable, as it depends on what you see as
> 'ownership right':
> if I give you the right to use a piece of code I wrote, and
> after a year I
> decide to revoke it, do I have that right or not? Only if
you
> received from
> me the right that you may use it indefinitely. For example
> dutch copyright
> law is written to protect the copyright holder, nothing can
be
> done to the
> changed work without the approval of the copyright holder,
> this is a
> difference between e.g. dutch law and US law and was also a
> problem with
> translating the creative commons to a dutch law compatible
> version.
>
> \o/ It depends! (where you are ;))
>
>
> > At least that's what the FSF says. GPLv2 does not have the
> word
> irrevocable
> > in it, GPLv3 does. It has never been tested in court
AFAIK,
> but the way
> you
> > put it, it looks just uninformed to me.
>
>
> I'm not uninformed, trust me. I don't think you're
> uninformed
> either, ISV's have to be well informed about what licensing
is
> all about and
> what the consequences are, for example when someone does
work
> for you or
> wants to contribute code to your project.
>
>
> > Thousands of OSS projects would be in danger if that was
> true, including
> > Linux. I really don't think that this is a possibility
that
> should be
> > considered by the NH team!
>
>
> look at the (c) of the sourcecode. :) You quoted a
> header of
> Hibernate, the copyright is with RH, owner of JBoss. This
> isn't done because
> they like to own stuff, but because of that they want to be
> able to decide
> what happens to the code.
>
> What I suggested, an NH foundation which owns the
(c),
> you don't
> have the problems arising from 'owner controls what can be
> done', the NH
> foundation is in that case the owner.
>
>
> > BTW, we're not safe from patents in the EU:
> > http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2010/05/german-high-court-
> declares-all-
> > software.html
>
>
> yeah, true. Though EU patent law overrules a german
> judge (if I'm
> told correctly!), although it's a troubling progression.
> Software patents
> will hurt us all bigtime.
>
> FB
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Fabio Maulo
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Fabio Maulo
>
