On Wed, 2006-06-21 at 16:14 +0200, Erwin Rol wrote: > On Wed, 2006-06-21 at 19:18 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > On Wed, 2006-06-21 at 15:13 +0200, Erwin Rol wrote: > > > On Wed, 2006-06-21 at 18:04 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > > > On Wed, 2006-06-21 at 11:54 +0200, Erwin Rol wrote: > > > > > > > > With some seriously ugly hacks i got it to compile and run, of course > > > > > still a lot of bugs but when it would be a real community project (no > > > > > copyright assignments, and no CC-non-commercial license) I think it can > > > > > be made to work with gcj. > > > > > > > > Many community projects including all of the GNU ones require copyright > > > > assignments. That is on many occasions a good practice. > > > > > > And it is also a PITA to do paperwork before you can help with a > > > project. This about if everybody that helps with Fedora has to sign > > > legal paperwork, which of course is different in every country. Of > > > course if you want to sell the GPL work of others under a closed source > > > license like MySQl, Qt, Open-Xchange, than you need to be the copyright > > > holder. So the main thing copyright assignment does is turn GPL code > > > into BSD-like code (be it for a smaller group, the ones the copyrights > > > are assigned to). A true community project has no need for copyright > > > assignment. > > > > Incorrect. Any project (not just those dual licensed) would be benefit > > from a better legal stand point by retaining the copyright over all > > contributions > > > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html > > http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt > > You can also look at it this way, a country is way easier to control by > a dictator than by some pesky parliament that always disagree with each > other. But still most people would rather not have a dictator in their > country. If people can not agree what to do about a copyright violation > of a common piece of software, maybe that's how it should be, maybe > creating a "dictator" by assigning all copyright to "him" is not always > in the best interest of the community. Assigning copyrights doesnt require any dictator (individual) . You can very well assign copyrights to foundations like Apache or organizations like FSF > > Of course the FSF is "always" doing the "right" thing, so assigning > copyright to them is probably not a problem. But what good is it for the > community to assign copyright to some company like the one making > Open-Xchange, MySql, Qt etc. ? I was pointing out that there are good benefits out of the scheme. Whether you choose to assign your copyrights to dual licensing organizations is more of a question of trust, renumeration etc. Rahul -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
