Hi to all.
I'm not a GNOME Foundation member, then I apologize for this e-mail. But as
enthusiastic GNOME user, I would like to send you my opinion.
First at all: thank you Richard Stallman and Miguel De Icaza for GNOME idea.
Thank you Miguel for GNOME hacking and for Mono too. Thank you RMS for
Hi Murray,
On Thu, 2009-12-17 at 10:54 +0100, Murray Cumming wrote:
> My concern is that code without a copyright holder cannot really be
> under any license.
This is a very frequently made point; of course - IANAL. But if you
follow this argument to it's logical conclusion this makes al
To deny a group or a person the legitimacy to keep intellectual property
proprietary goes against criteria five of the Open Source Definition:
A statement that uses the term "intellectual property" is tremendously
vague, since that refers to many laws at once, and treats them as one
single
5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
I am being discriminated against because I can not make improvements
or discuss where the project is headed.
The definition of open source is a criterion for software licenses;
I don't think it applies to mailing list usage at all.
But I
(Sent via my phone; apologies for the formatting)
To clarify: Clutter (currently) comes with a copyright assignment. The
copyright waiver has been introduced for small patches attached to Bugzilla
to avoid going through the copyright assignment process.
The waiver and the assignment are two ortho
On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 16:08 -0700, Stormy Peters wrote:
> That said, the discussion started because of Clutter and its copyright
> assignment and the fact that that is blocking it's inclusion in GNOME
> 2.28.
I'm not a lawyer, so I'm very ready for someone to just tell me that I'm
wrong, but:
Cl
