Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document Foundation

Hello BRM,


Le Thu, 28 Oct 2010 07:12:59 -0700 (PDT),
BRM <bm_witness@yahoo.com> a écrit :

> ----- Original Message ----
>
> > From: Charles-H. Schulz <charles.schulz@documentfoundation.org>
> > 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  OOo code under LGPL v3. They could have put "LGPL v3
> > or later" or "LGPL  v3 or +". But they didn't. And that's what
> > makes impossible to turn  OOo into a different license unless the
> > sole copyright owner agrees  to change it, which is unlikely with
> > Oracle.
>
> While I like that TDF is not requiring copyright assignment, there is
> one point missing here that is in its favor.
>
> True, Sun/Oracle has currently licensed OOo under LGPLv3.
> But what's to stop them from going to LGPLv4 when it is available?
> Absolutely nothing. At which point TDF may not be able to accept
> changes from OOo any longer assuming it is still possible at that time
> without updating the LO license to be the same or inclusive therein.
>
> Perhaps the way around that is to require those contributing TDF to
> use the "or later" language; though some may not want to.
>
> Even without copyright assignment the only thing standing in the way
> of changing the license - whether to LGPLv4 or even GPLv3 or whatever
> else - is getting the permission of _all_ the copyright holders.

Good objection indeed! Actually, the problem is partly solved, since we
now license our software under "LGPL v3 or later". At least it would be
solved for the LGPL side of things. But my real answer here though, is
perhaps more provocative: if Oracle changes the licence, do we really
care? for the 3.3 we stick to the codebase of OOo, but I'm unsure we'll
stick that much  to it in further releases. In fact, I can already
point out, looking at our development activity, that we're not taking
the path of being "OpenOffice.org, just recompiled by the community". I
think as the time will go by, we will diverge more and more and end up
becoming quite different software. 

> > From what I understand this is already impossible to do under Linux
> > due to 
> deaths of at least one contributor.

Yes, and in this case a rewrite is needed. 

> The main reason projects move towards having copyright assignment is
> to be able to keep the licensing language up to date - to use the
> latest GPL/LGPL license due to exactly the issue of how hard it is to
> track down every contributor and get their permission in should they
> want to change the license. At present the bulk of the code is held
> by Oracle and such can be most easily changed by garnishing
> permission from one entity; though that will not be true for long for
> TDF without copyright assignment - in which case there would be two -
> TDF and Oracle.
>
> The Linux Kernel guys don't require it; KDE E.v. does. Both methods
> have their pros and cons.
>
> Ultimately, as long as TDF and the community are aware and accept
> what may occur should Oracle radically change the license it doesn't
> really matter.


exactly. 

> Just pointing out it's a little more complex than Oracle is not
> likely to change the license since they very well could. Fortunately
> they cannot do it retroactively, at least with the LGPL.
>
> $0.02

Thanks!

Charles.

> Ben
>
> P.S. IANAL and such disclaimers. This is just from what I have
> learned from years of watching the community and the licensing topics.



-- 
Charles-H. Schulz
Membre du Comité exécutif
The Document Foundation.

--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+help@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***