Andrea,
I disagree with your analysis, because it fails to include the development
specifics.
But anyway, we'll see. :-)
Charles.
Le 17 nov. 2010, 12:29 AM, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@openoffice.org a
écrit :
On 07/11/2010 Charles-H. Schulz wrote: The last minutes of the SC meeting
explains
Hi Charles,
Charles-H. Schulz ha scritto:
Andrea,
I disagree with your analysis, because it fails to include the development
specifics.
What do you mean with development specifics?
Maybe after we have clearly defined them we can deal with.
Davide
--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to
Il 07/11/2010 4.20, Michael Meeks ha scritto:
The choice to not aggregate ownership is a deliberate one, and is by no
means a random choice
Please, let me know if this decision was already taken by the founders'
group and if it's definitive.
If the answer is yes to both questions, we can
Gianluca,
The last minutes of the SC meeting explains that we will revisit the issue
once the Foundation is properly established.
Charles.
Le 7 nov. 2010, 2:37 PM, Gianluca Turconi m...@letturefantastiche.com a
écrit :
Il 07/11/2010 4.20, Michael Meeks ha scritto:
The choice to not aggregate
On Fri, 2010-11-05 at 21:03 +, Caolán McNamara wrote:
As far as I know, GNOME, KDE, Linux kernel and the GIMP along with
masses of the little projects that makes everything work, typically get
along fine without copyright assignment, though some have quirks like
optional copyright
2010/11/5, Caolán McNamara caol...@redhat.com:
Wasn't subscribed to this list earlier, so I'll just hijack the first
mail from the copyright thread to reply to to state my own opinion on
copyright assignments.
So, I'm not a huge fan of them
No one (no authors or developer, at least) can be.
Il 06/11/2010 14.27, Roberto Resoli ha scritto:
As I told other times, giving power to FSF or Mozilla instead of let
TDF taking it, is not the best thing to do.
Amen! :)
Here:
http://www.letturefantastiche.com/external/vertical_and_horizontal_foundations.odg
I've expressed in graphical form
On Sat, Nov 06, 2010 at 03:32:32PM +0100, Gianluca Turconi wrote:
And I'm, for the life of me, now and forever, more in favor of a
vertical foundation: more powers, in good hands.
That's fine as long as those hands remain benevolent. Not always a good
assumption.
--
Bob Holtzman
Key ID:
Il 06/11/2010 17.50, Robert Holtzman ha scritto:
That's fine as long as those hands remain benevolent. Not always a good
assumption.
If you think so, no foundation is needed at all.
--
Gianluca Turconi
--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting
On Sat, 2010-11-06 at 18:55 +0100, Gianluca Turconi wrote:
Il 06/11/2010 17.50, Robert Holtzman ha scritto:
That's fine as long as those hands remain benevolent. Not always a good
assumption.
If you think so, no foundation is needed at all.
--
Gianluca Turconi
To me, the main reason to
Il 04/11/2010 16.56, Italo Vignoli ha scritto:
The community cannot issue formal certifications about software, and
this is where the OOo project has missed the point.
I know it.
Nevertheless, a foundation isn't needed to start a certification program.
Any vendor may start it, with more or
Il 05/11/2010 13.24, Ian ha scritto:
But if there is a desire for an
independent LO foundation it also provides an opportunity to sustain it.
A desire is different from a need, in a decentralized development
system, but I got your point, thanks, Ian.
You explained it very well, indeed. :)
On 05/11/10 11.57, Gianluca Turconi wrote:
And, by saying the truth, why a TDF certification program should be
better than a hypothetical IBM LIbO certified professional label, in a
wider Community?
The problem is not the quality of the certification program.
Vendors have their own
On 04/11/10 16.35, Gianluca Turconi wrote:
However, we're disputing about the meaning of words and I don't find any
value in this, because if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck,
it's a duck, whatever name you initially used to call it.
The community cannot issue formal certifications
Il 02/11/2010 20.57, Charles Marcus ha scritto:
It might sound complicated, but once it is automated, it would 'just
work'. Of course, the system that holds this information should be
backed up religiously...;)
This system may work, indeed.
It would cover several important national laws in
Hi,
Von: Gianluca Turconi
Gesendet: 03.11.10 08:40 Uhr
Il 02/11/2010 20.57, Charles Marcus ha scritto: It might sound complicated,
but once it is automated, it would 'just work'. Of course, the system that
holds this information should be backed up religiously...;) This system may
work,
2010/11/3 Andre Schnabel andre.schna...@gmx.net:
Hi,
Von: Gianluca Turconi
Gesendet: 03.11.10 08:40 Uhr
Il 02/11/2010 20.57, Charles Marcus ha scritto: It might sound complicated,
but once it is automated, it would 'just work'. Of course, the system that
holds this information should
Il 03/11/2010 8.59, Andre Schnabel ha scritto:
Ianal - but for German (and most EU countries) law, digital
agreements are only equivalent to written ones, if there is a trusted
electronic signature in place.
So a just click thru would not really establish something that is
legally binding.
On Tue, 2010-11-02 at 17:28 +0100, Roberto Resoli wrote:
Copyright Assignment is nor bad nor good, it's a compromise
I do not see assignment in -any- way as a compromise; but as an
un-necessary extreme.
i am still waiting to see any reply also to Andrea's proposals
in another thread
Il 01/11/2010 20.50, BRM ha scritto:
While IANAL, to my understanding at least the US requires explicit documentation
of copyright assignment.
So a license stating such would not work.
In many countries, software licenses are considered contracts (by law or
jurisprudence) and *must* be
Gianluca Turconi wrote:
I've already suggested that if the copyright assignment is
considered a too heavy burden, it should be asked to the contributor
at least a statement that clearly affirms his/her absolute copyright
rights for the contribution (nobody else can claim nothing about the
Gianluca Turconi wrote:
However, what it works it isn't always the best *legal* solution.
Hi Gianluca,
oh, I certainly agree on this. As usual, the challenge is to hit the
sweet spot, between attracting developers, and satisfying other
requirements.
Cheers,
-- Thorsten
--
Unsubscribe
2010/11/1 Michael Meeks michael.me...@novell.com:
Hi Andrea,
...
Now, without copyright assignment/agreement (granted by the LibreOffice
developers to the Document Foundation), the Document Foundation will be
in the awkward situation I described: it manages a product (LibreOffice)
but cannot
On 2010-11-02 8:12 AM, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
I respect your opinion - alas, I have a different one. For your
specific example, if someone submits code to LibO, stating in her
mail I license this under LGPLv3+ / MPL, and that later turns out
to be false pretense, that gives you about as much
Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
Andrea Pescetti a écrit :
Honestly, I believe new developers joined because the bar for
contribution was lowered ...
the paperwork reduction may have helped too, but I don't see
it as the most effective improvement.
The paperwork was only a practical detail: not
Hi Andrea,
( just to mention: I did not make my mind on this yet, I'm just
providing some thoughts)
Von: Andrea Pescetti pesce...@openoffice.org
An: discuss@documentfoundation.org
The paperwork was only a practical detail: not relinquising your
copyright is the most important.
I
Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
Hello BRM,
Le Thu, 28 Oct 2010 07:12:59 -0700 (PDT),
BRM bm_witn...@yahoo.com a écrit :
- Original Message
From: Charles-H. Schulz charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org
4) the notion that we cannot change license because we don't have
copyright assignment
Hi!
On Monday 01 November 2010, Andre Schnabel wrote:
If we want an answer on this (would developers not have joined if there
was a CA) we would need to ask them. This should indeed be asked
at the dev-list. I'd bet, that at least some of them would state
that they not would have joined.
I
Hi Andrea,
On Sun, 2010-10-31 at 23:56 +0100, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
I haven't seen any new contributor write that they joined because of
(the refusal of) a copyright agreement; while I have seen several new
contributors write that they started contributing because the Easy
Hacks were so
- Original Message
From: Charles Marcus cmar...@media-brokers.com
On 2010-10-31 6:56 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
Now, without copyright assignment/agreement (granted by the LibreOffice
developers to the Document Foundation), the Document Foundation will be
in the awkward
Hello Andrea,
Le Sat, 30 Oct 2010 17:10:07 +0200,
Andrea Pescetti pesce...@openoffice.org a écrit :
Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
We initially agreed not to request the assignment of copyright for
code contributions, and we can only witness that it's been so far
the right decision: Many
Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
We initially agreed not to request the assignment of copyright for code
contributions, and we can only witness that it's been so far the right
decision: Many developers have joined us and contribute
Honestly, I believe new developers joined because the bar for
- Original Message
From: Cor Nouws oo...@nouenoff.nl
To: discuss@documentfoundation.org
Sent: Fri, October 29, 2010 2:22:03 AM
Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments the Document Foundation
Hi all,
BRM wrote (29-10-10 00:41)
From: Thorsten Behrenst
- Original Message
From: todd rme toddrme2...@gmail.com
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 9:28 AM, BRM bm_witn...@yahoo.com wrote:
From: Cor Nouws oo...@nouenoff.nl
To: discuss@documentfoundation.org
Sent: Fri, October 29, 2010 2:22:03 AM
Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright
Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
4) the notion that we cannot change license because we don't have
copyright assignment needs to be put to rest once and for all today.
There is a very simple explanation with respect to this issue; ask any
lawyer and he/she will confirm this: Sun/Oracle has licensed the
- Original Message
From: Charles-H. Schulz charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org
Le Thu, 28 Oct 2010 07:12:59 -0700 (PDT),
BRM bm_witn...@yahoo.com a écrit :
From: Charles-H. Schulz charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org
4) the notion that we cannot change license because we
BRM wrote:
The Linux Kernel guys don't require it; KDE E.v. does. Both methods have
their
pros and cons.
Hi, just a very small correction here - KDE e.V. does not require
it, it is optional to sign their FLA (a trait shared among other
FLOSS projects, e.g. the Python Foundation acts
- Original Message
From: Thorsten Behrens t...@documentfoundation.org
To: discuss@documentfoundation.org
Sent: Thu, October 28, 2010 5:37:19 PM
Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments the Document Foundation
BRM wrote:
The Linux Kernel guys don't require it; KDE E.v
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 9:18 AM, Charles-H. Schulz
charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org wrote:
Hello all, (apologies for this quite long email)
I would like to discuss a bit the position of the Document Foundation
with respect to copyright assignments. I understand there have been
39 matches
Mail list logo
