RE: [xwiki-commits] r596 - in xwiki/trunk/src: main/java/com/xpn/xwiki/plugin/packaging test/com/xpn/xwiki/test
-----Original Message----- From: Vincent Massol [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: mardi 7 juin 2005 13:57 To: '[email protected]' Subject: RE: [xwiki-commits] r596 - in xwiki/trunk/src: main/java/com/xpn/xwiki/plugin/packaging test/com/xpn/xwiki/test
-----Original Message----- From: Jeremi Joslin [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: mardi 7 juin 2005 13:53 To: [email protected] Subject: [xwiki-commits] r596 - in xwiki/trunk/src: main/java/com/xpn/xwiki/plugin/packaging test/com/xpn/xwiki/test
[snip]
+/** + * =================================================================== + * + * Copyright (c) 2005 Jrmi Joslin, XpertNet, All rights reserved.
Jeremi, you're going to find me a pain in the ... but there are 2 issues here:
1/ I think the copyright should go to Ludovic Dubost. At least that's the current policy AFAIK
Actually forget that (sorry about it) because I guess that's the current discussion in progress. I personally always try to have a single person/organization that gets the copyright attribution for the reasons mentioned here: http://clirr.sourceforge.net/contributing.html Ludovic, before we do this license change what is the current licensing policy WRT the copyright? By looking at the existing source code I had assumed it was to give it to you but maybe that's not the case. [snip] Thanks -Vincent
This is indeed the current discussion. There are a few advantages of a unique copyright ownership, which include: - easy management of the licence (writing down the copyrights holders, etc..) - easy relicensing the code under a different licence - ability to double licence for clients that would be afraid of GPL, LGPL or anything else - ability to easily defend the copyright against any party that would infringe it But it has also one potential negative effect: - if gives the right to the copyright holder to go away and start a new project under any new licence I think this model works as long as the copyright holder is a foundation with clear goals about what it does, can do and who runs it. With me being the owner of a XPertNet, which in turns has Jeremi as an intern and will have employees which will be contributors that would mean that a bunch of copyrights would be assigned to XPertNet. I think in this model it is not wise to request contributors to assign the copyrights to XPertNet. It would allow the company if acquired to dump the project (but of course without being able to revoke the open source licence on the existing code) and continue on a new project under a closed source licence. If the code is under the GPL or LGPL licence this would give XPertNet more rights than other contributors. In the ASL the only difference it makes is giving the right in enforce the copyright agains infringers. However I think some of the benefits of the unique copyright can be achieved using a contributors aggreement: 1/ Contributors keep their copyright 2/ Contributors give XPertNet the right to use, distribute and sell the software under the GPL or LGPL licence or any subsequent version. 3/ Contributors give XPertNet the right to defend their copyright against potential infringers The main unsolved issue is the easy management of the copyright holders. Having individual contributions make setting the copyright at the top of the page quite an issue. Either we need to put a message that says that the main copyright owner is XPertNet and that for details it should be looked in SVN who made the contributions. Otherwise we might have to list each individual copyright holder or maybe just the main ones. Another solution is to assign the Copyrights to XPertNet but with certain restrictions like having to keep subsequent modifications in the GPL or LGPL. Another solution is to assign the Copyrights to an independent organization (XWiki fundation, ObjectWeb ?, anything else) who would be in charge of the copyright infringements. I'm open for suggestion on this one, given that the objective is to move to the LGPL licence concerning the current code (I think we still need the answer of Jiri on this one). Ludovic Vincent Massol a écrit :
-----Original Message----- From: Vincent Massol [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: mardi 7 juin 2005 13:57 To: '[email protected]' Subject: RE: [xwiki-commits] r596 - in xwiki/trunk/src: main/java/com/xpn/xwiki/plugin/packaging test/com/xpn/xwiki/test
-----Original Message----- From: Jeremi Joslin [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: mardi 7 juin 2005 13:53 To: [email protected] Subject: [xwiki-commits] r596 - in xwiki/trunk/src: main/java/com/xpn/xwiki/plugin/packaging test/com/xpn/xwiki/test
[snip]
+/** + * =================================================================== + * + * Copyright (c) 2005 Jrmi Joslin, XpertNet, All rights reserved.
Jeremi, you're going to find me a pain in the ... but there are 2 issues here:
1/ I think the copyright should go to Ludovic Dubost. At least that's the current policy AFAIK
Actually forget that (sorry about it) because I guess that's the current discussion in progress. I personally always try to have a single person/organization that gets the copyright attribution for the reasons mentioned here: http://clirr.sourceforge.net/contributing.html
Ludovic, before we do this license change what is the current licensing policy WRT the copyright? By looking at the existing source code I had assumed it was to give it to you but maybe that's not the case.
[snip]
Thanks -Vincent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- You receive this message as a subscriber of the [email protected] mailing list. To unsubscribe: mailto:[email protected] For general help: mailto:[email protected]?subject=help ObjectWeb mailing lists service home page: http://www.objectweb.org/wws
-- Ludovic Dubost XPertNet: http://www.xpertnet.fr/ Blog: http://www.ludovic.org/blog/ XWiki: http://www.xwiki.com Skype: ldubost AIM: nvludo Yahoo: ludovic
participants (2)
-
Ludovic Dubost -
Vincent Massol