> > hmm...Agreeded. > > I'd suggest 10 days instead of 5 (if I, for an example, am on a heavy > workload week, 5 days could not be enough to make my points, if they > need soem expermenting on the codebase), But since the decision was > taken, so mote it be - it's not gonna hurt. later it was agreed that 7 would be more reasonable since some people only work on it part of the week. 10 could be made for the same reason. I'll make sure it it brought up. Also, nothing has been set in stone. We are very informal around here, as always. > As for the foundation., I'd be happy if it was in Europe. USA is > getting more and more of those stuppid laws, including states passing > "super-DMCAs¨ , that if enforced would stop the Internet alltogether. It could be in both. I still need to talk to a lawyer. As was brought up at the meeting, FSF has two seperate and associated groups. FSF America and FSF Europe. Both with different monies and slightly different goals. > The foundation has to care off one other thing I did not see on the > summary: most, or all of the codebase must be owned by it. It would > legally allow small adjusts in the license, like the recently one > that clarified that there could be proprietary plug-ins for the GIMP. > (Strictly in terms of the GPL, as currently the copyright holder is > each individual author, there would be the need to have express > permission from each author for this change). Also, there is the GNU > motive - if the need arises to defend GIMP's IP in court, it is > easier if the foundation is the owner, and not a lot of people spread > over the world. This is a very good point. > Off course there must be foolproof safeguards to keep the foundation > from doing non-wanted things to the codebase. So, that GIMP should be > free software should be specified in the "reason of being"of such a > foundation. yes, well, in america, when you incorporate as a public-benefit NPO, you can include that concept in the reason of being. Thus any move away from free software would require a dissolving of the corporation. Even if that happened, public-benefit NPO assests must be sold to another public-benefit NPO, so a "hostile takeover" of an NPO isn't really possible. -- Daniel Rogers
