On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 1:42 AM, Troy Benjegerdes <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Proposal: come up with set of goals and desires rather than legal
> > text. Send these goals over to license-discuss. I am happy to
> > Shepard this process. Let them ensure that whatever goals are desired
> > still is "open source". Once we have that then it requires taking the
> > time (and possibly money) to find a lawyer willing to write the
> > license. This is the only way you are going to get a useful license
> > that may stand up in court.
> >
> > In this case it seems almost like GPLv2 would meet your needs exactly.
> >
> > I do have some concerns that the GPL is meant for code, not hardware,
> > but since the hardware actually *is* code (verilog or whatever) this
> > isn't a real concern.
>
> There is going to be some problem with this, and we're only going to
> find it out with lots of review, and maybe litigation. This is why
> I like explicit dual (or triple, or more) license models.
>
> I'd also propose we start *from the beginning* by tracking every
> contributor, so that if at some point we do need to change the license,
> each and every contributor can be offered some sort of notification to
> either approve the new license, or state their code must be cleanroomed
> for a new license.
>
Yeah. Like people have to ask me to be allowed to make contributions, so I
can grill them on the terms that they have to agree to.
>
> This is technically a project policy, with the goal of allowing migration
> to a new license. Linux, for example, has no way to move to anything other
> than GPLv2.
>
> > Suggestion: start with GPLv2 because it sounds like what you want
> > already. Let the discussion play out and then possibly change it
> > later.
>
> how about: GPLv2, or at your option, GPLv3, or AGPLv3, or any later version
>
> > I would however consider an apache like patent retaliation clause ("if
> > you sue us over patent issues, you lose your rights to use the
> > software").
> >
> > > Ok. So at the very least, I need two documents, one for licensing
> terms,
> > > the other for project policy.
> >
> > Yes. You may also need a third: the actual "copyright assignment"
> > form. Personally, I'd look into a foundation for this effort or ask
> > the SPI if they are willing to act as the host for the assignment. I
> > am willing to approach them provided there is consensus on this list.
> > Note that requiring copyright assignment is very useful for the goals
> > of the project (eventually licensing out the work to commercial users)
> > but it does tend to reduce contribution.
>
>
> My thought is we want unofficial (or even official) development forks
> and sandbox clones that take code regardless of assignment, but that
> there's a good policy (and code to validate that 'official' releases
> only use code that's been properly assigned)
>
Good idea. Basically, a commercial licensee can see that the Official
version has been put under rigorous testing, while they can't be sure of
that for the GPL-only version. But then, they won't want the GPL-only
version anyhow.
--
Timothy Normand Miller, PhD
Assistant Professor of Computer Science, Binghamton University
http://www.cs.binghamton.edu/~millerti/<http://www.cse.ohio-state.edu/~millerti>
Open Graphics Project
_______________________________________________
Open-graphics mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics
List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
