Re: Idea: GNOME event in Beijing 2008
Adding Amy Jiang to the Cc. Hi Amy! :-) - Jeff > This is a call for volunteers and interested GNOME lovers in Beijing / > China / East Asia. Please forward to friends and contacts that might > be interested. > > There is this initial idea of organizing a GNOME event in Beijing next > year. Emily Chen and other developers of the Sun Desktop in Beijing > have started pushing the idea and now they are in the task of having > an initial organization team with volunteers from other organizations, > companies and individuals. > > There is a lot of GNOME related development going on in Beijing, China > and East Asia in general. This conference could be a great opportunity > to provide more visibility to the ideas, people, teams etc. We are > starting the discussion in the GNOME marketing-list. > > More: > > GNOME calling to Beijing / China / East Asia > http://desdeamericaconamor.org/blog/node/384 -- linux.conf.au 2008: Melbourne, Australiahttp://lca2008.linux.org.au/ "It's pretty hard to reinvent the wheel in Python, because so many awesome wheels already exist." - Colin Walters ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Foundation and Source Code Copyright
> hmm, sorry to say that, but I was under the impression this was suggested > many years ago (2/3 or maybe 4), and indeed I've written some code myself > assigning the copyright to the foundation. Usually small stuff that is not > in GNOME, but I just had a look, and the whole of libgda is (C) The GNOME > Foundation. So, should all those source files be changed, or can we do > something about it? Well, the stated copyright ownership is a mistake, so whether you decide you want to assign copyright to the Foundation or just correct the problem, you have to know who *actually* owns the copyright. Going through the logs and listing committers and attributed contributors would be the first step along that painful path. :-) - Jeff -- Open Source in Mobile 2007: Madrid, Spain http://www.osimconference.com/ o/~ we all live in a yellow subroutine o/~ - auspex ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Foundation and Source Code Copyright
> We were aware of this, but since contributions mean that there are often a > half a dozen different contributors to one file, we thought it may be > easier to assign copyright and then list the contributors as authors. Copyright assignment generally doesn't make things for developers easier. It may make certain things more clear, but not necessarily easier. For a start, if your aim is sole aggregate copyright ownership, you have to ensure that contributors have signed the copyright assignment agreement before accepting their contributions... :-) - Jeff -- linux.conf.au 2008: Melbourne, Australiahttp://lca2008.linux.org.au/ "It will test your head. And your mind. And your brain, too." - Jack Black, School of Rock ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Foundation and Source Code Copyright
> During discussions about copyright at GUADEC several people mentioned that > developers were not encouraged to assign copyright to the GNOME > Foundation. Not so much "not encouraged" as "no one's ever done it before and we haven't created the necessary bureaucracy/infrastructure to handle it". We'd need to create a copyright assignment form and process - if, that is, we decide it's worth doing. :-) (I think it probably is - plus it has come up a number of times in the GPLv3 discussions.) - Jeff -- linux.conf.au 2008: Melbourne, Australiahttp://lca2008.linux.org.au/ "The Vines are the latest pretenders to the thrown." - Vines review by liv4now.com ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Foundation and Source Code Copyright
If the developers of some component of GNOME want to make it formally a GNU package, they can assign copyright to the FSF. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Idea: GNOME event in Beijing 2008
This is a call for volunteers and interested GNOME lovers in Beijing / China / East Asia. Please forward to friends and contacts that might be interested. There is this initial idea of organizing a GNOME event in Beijing next year. Emily Chen and other developers of the Sun Desktop in Beijing have started pushing the idea and now they are in the task of having an initial organization team with volunteers from other organizations, companies and individuals. There is a lot of GNOME related development going on in Beijing, China and East Asia in general. This conference could be a great opportunity to provide more visibility to the ideas, people, teams etc. We are starting the discussion in the GNOME marketing-list. More: GNOME calling to Beijing / China / East Asia http://desdeamericaconamor.org/blog/node/384 -- Quim Gil ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Foundation and Source Code Copyright
On 8/3/07, Behdad Esfahbod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 2007-08-03 at 21:48 +0200, Juan José Sánchez Penas wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 01:40:39PM -0400, Behdad Esfahbod wrote: > > > ownership. When multiple companies (Red Hat, Novell, Sun, ...) own > > > copyright on a package, it's harder to do something wrong (for example, > > > to relicense the package under a new license). > > > > Is this always something wrong? I guess sometimes making easier to change a > > license can be good (in terms of freedom, for example). All depends on how > > much you (want to) trust the copyright holder. > > Yeah, could be good if it was easier to say change Evo from GPLv2 to > GPLv3+, but you either end up having many copyright holders anyway (all > the people submitting non-trivial patches on bugzilla) or risk blocking > development by bureaucracy of having to submit disclaimer or assignment > forms first, like what Sun is doing with Java right now, or FSF with > Emacs and some other projects. But of course you have to weigh that risk (which is very real) with the risk of someone finding a gigantic loophole in the existing license and driving a truck through it. Not that any of *our* contributors would do such a thing. Ahem. ;) Luis ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Foundation and Source Code Copyright
On Fri, 2007-08-03 at 21:48 +0200, Juan José Sánchez Penas wrote: > On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 01:40:39PM -0400, Behdad Esfahbod wrote: > > ownership. When multiple companies (Red Hat, Novell, Sun, ...) own > > copyright on a package, it's harder to do something wrong (for example, > > to relicense the package under a new license). > > Is this always something wrong? I guess sometimes making easier to change a > license can be good (in terms of freedom, for example). All depends on how > much you (want to) trust the copyright holder. Yeah, could be good if it was easier to say change Evo from GPLv2 to GPLv3+, but you either end up having many copyright holders anyway (all the people submitting non-trivial patches on bugzilla) or risk blocking development by bureaucracy of having to submit disclaimer or assignment forms first, like what Sun is doing with Java right now, or FSF with Emacs and some other projects. > - juanjo -- behdad http://behdad.org/ "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Foundation and Source Code Copyright
On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 01:40:39PM -0400, Behdad Esfahbod wrote: > ownership. When multiple companies (Red Hat, Novell, Sun, ...) own > copyright on a package, it's harder to do something wrong (for example, > to relicense the package under a new license). Is this always something wrong? I guess sometimes making easier to change a license can be good (in terms of freedom, for example). All depends on how much you (want to) trust the copyright holder. - juanjo ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Foundation and Source Code Copyright
On Fri, 2007-08-03 at 12:49 +0100, Thomas Wood wrote: > On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 07:06:39 -0400 > "Luis Villa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [...] > > > > A couple of developers, including myself, have been working on a > > > > new capplet for the control center. Since we had been working on > > > > it as a group we decided it would be fairest to assign copyright > > > > to the foundation rather than any particular individual. > > > > You can always jointly own copyright; if you look around CC I'm sure > > you'll see lots of files that are (c) both jrb and chema, for example. > > We were aware of this, but since contributions mean that there are > often a half a dozen different contributors to one file, we thought it > may be easier to assign copyright and then list the contributors as > authors. > > After all, should someone who has made just a small patch really be > responsible for the copyright of the whole file, or just the lines they > contributed? The opposite question also applies; Should the person who > started the work be responsible for the contributions of others which > may even unknowingly infringe on other copyrights. It's not about being responsible for others. As was already said, the list is just documentation, it may or may not be correct. The list itself doesn't bring any legal responsibility I guess. With version control systems, it's always possible to track down who introduced what, so you really don't need to worry. And best practice if you are not interested in the copyright of the code personally may be to ask your employer if they are interested. One advantage of the current way we assign copyright is that we diversify ownership. When multiple companies (Red Hat, Novell, Sun, ...) own copyright on a package, it's harder to do something wrong (for example, to relicense the package under a new license). > I think these were some of the issues we were hoping to avoid in > assigning the copyright to a single entity. Obviously we also hoped > that assigning the copyright to the foundation would have the advantage > that they would be more prepared to defend the copyright should the > need ever arise. If you still want to assign to someone else and be done with it, FSF can do that I guess. > Regards, > > Thomas -- behdad http://behdad.org/ "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Foundation and Source Code Copyright
On Fri, 2007-08-03 at 07:06 -0400, Luis Villa wrote: > > While we have been discussing this issue, we also discovered that many > > of the source files in control center did not have copyright > > statements and those that did were probably out of date and did not > > include the names of all the contributors. Could the foundation advise > > us on what needs to be done and how we could rectify the situation as > > quickly as possible. > > You probably don't *need* to do anything- the files are copyrighted by > the authors whether there is a copyright statement or not. But it > certainly wouldn't hurt to do a CVS history on the files in question > and add names and appropriate (L)GPL headers to the files. Of course, it's not always easy to map from the person doing the check-in to the appropriate copyright statement. The same contributor might have worked for multiple different companies over the years and at other times been doing work on their own. - Owen ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Foundation and Source Code Copyright
On Fri, 2007-08-03 at 11:56 +0200, Dave Neary wrote: > Hi Thomas, > > Thomas Wood wrote: > > During discussions about copyright at GUADEC several people mentioned > > that developers were not encouraged to assign copyright to the GNOME > > Foundation. > > >From my point of view, "not encouraged" isn't the way I see things. > Certainly no-one has done so so far, > hmm, sorry to say that, but I was under the impression this was suggested many years ago (2/3 or maybe 4), and indeed I've written some code myself assigning the copyright to the foundation. Usually small stuff that is not in GNOME, but I just had a look, and the whole of libgda is (C) The GNOME Foundation. So, should all those source files be changed, or can we do something about it? IIRC, the argument that convinced me for using the foundation as (C) owner was that, in case of a problem that involves a court, it would be easier to defend the code with just one big legal body than with 10s of different developers, some of which might have disappeared or even changed their commitment to free software. If this argument is still valid, I think we should do something, now that most previous and current contributors still support free software :-) -- Rodrigo Moya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Foundation and Source Code Copyright
btw a good habit everyone should try to have is, when you modify a file add your name and date to the copyright list at the top. When submitting or reviewing a patch, should check for this. I know I often forget it when I review and submit patches, but it's always correct and best to do this. People sometimes feel shy about this but they should not - it's just a statement of fact. If you wrote some code in the file you (or your employer) will own the copyright, until/unless you sign a contract relaying it elsewhere. So adding your name to the top is a statement of this factual situation. Havoc ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Foundation and Source Code Copyright
On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 07:06:39 -0400 "Luis Villa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > > > A couple of developers, including myself, have been working on a > > > new capplet for the control center. Since we had been working on > > > it as a group we decided it would be fairest to assign copyright > > > to the foundation rather than any particular individual. > > You can always jointly own copyright; if you look around CC I'm sure > you'll see lots of files that are (c) both jrb and chema, for example. We were aware of this, but since contributions mean that there are often a half a dozen different contributors to one file, we thought it may be easier to assign copyright and then list the contributors as authors. After all, should someone who has made just a small patch really be responsible for the copyright of the whole file, or just the lines they contributed? The opposite question also applies; Should the person who started the work be responsible for the contributions of others which may even unknowingly infringe on other copyrights. I think these were some of the issues we were hoping to avoid in assigning the copyright to a single entity. Obviously we also hoped that assigning the copyright to the foundation would have the advantage that they would be more prepared to defend the copyright should the need ever arise. Regards, Thomas ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Foundation and Source Code Copyright
On 8/3/07, Dave Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Thomas, > > Thomas Wood wrote: > > During discussions about copyright at GUADEC several people mentioned > > that developers were not encouraged to assign copyright to the GNOME > > Foundation. > > >From my point of view, "not encouraged" isn't the way I see things. > Certainly no-one has done so so far, and since the mission of the > foundation is more organisational than technical, the usefulness cound > be questioned, but I think it's reasonable for the foundation to defend > the copyrights of its members, and if certain members wis to assign > their copyright, I wouldn't see any problem with that. I don't see any conflict with the foundation's mission, but typically copyright assignment requires execution of a contract, and on the foundation side, obviously someone needs to keep tract of those contracts and what code is owned by the foundation. To the best of my knowledge the Foundation isn't prepared to do this ATM- we have no assignment contract and no recordkeeping. (In practice, the Foundation is also probably not prepared to go to court over its copyright, but I suppose that could be remedied.) I know that SFLC would be willing to help us formalize a contract and a system if the board thinks it should be done. > > A couple of developers, including myself, have been working on a new > > capplet for the control center. Since we had been working on it as a > > group we decided it would be fairest to assign copyright to the > > foundation rather than any particular individual. You can always jointly own copyright; if you look around CC I'm sure you'll see lots of files that are (c) both jrb and chema, for example. > While we have been discussing this issue, we also discovered that many > of the source files in control center did not have copyright > statements and those that did were probably out of date and did not > include the names of all the contributors. Could the foundation advise > us on what needs to be done and how we could rectify the situation as > quickly as possible. You probably don't *need* to do anything- the files are copyrighted by the authors whether there is a copyright statement or not. But it certainly wouldn't hurt to do a CVS history on the files in question and add names and appropriate (L)GPL headers to the files. HTH- Luis ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Foundation and Source Code Copyright
Hi Thomas, Thomas Wood wrote: > During discussions about copyright at GUADEC several people mentioned > that developers were not encouraged to assign copyright to the GNOME > Foundation. >From my point of view, "not encouraged" isn't the way I see things. Certainly no-one has done so so far, and since the mission of the foundation is more organisational than technical, the usefulness cound be questioned, but I think it's reasonable for the foundation to defend the copyrights of its members, and if certain members wis to assign their copyright, I wouldn't see any problem with that. > A couple of developers, including myself, have been working on a new > capplet for the control center. Since we had been working on it as a > group we decided it would be fairest to assign copyright to the > foundation rather than any particular individual. Are we to understand > that this is not to be advised and if so why? I'm certainly not a definitive source on the issue - Luis would be a better person to comment on the consequences of such a copyright assignment - but I don't think that you are to understand that. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Neary GNOME Foundation member [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Foundation and Source Code Copyright
Hi, During discussions about copyright at GUADEC several people mentioned that developers were not encouraged to assign copyright to the GNOME Foundation. A couple of developers, including myself, have been working on a new capplet for the control center. Since we had been working on it as a group we decided it would be fairest to assign copyright to the foundation rather than any particular individual. Are we to understand that this is not to be advised and if so why? While we have been discussing this issue, we also discovered that many of the source files in control center did not have copyright statements and those that did were probably out of date and did not include the names of all the contributors. Could the foundation advise us on what needs to be done and how we could rectify the situation as quickly as possible. Regards, Thomas ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
