Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
Andrea Pescetti a écrit :
Honestly, I believe new developers joined because the bar for
contribution was lowered ...
the paperwork reduction may have helped too, but I don't see
it as the most effective improvement.
The paperwork was only a practical detail: not relinquising your
copyright is the most important.
I haven't seen any new contributor write that they joined because of
(the refusal of) a copyright agreement; while I have seen several new
contributors write that they started contributing because the "Easy
Hacks" were so easy that they didn't require any previous technical
So, unless this theory can be supported by numbers, the mere refusal of
copyright assignments/agreements does not seem to me the reason why new
contributors were attracted.
So we do take for granted that Oracle will not contribute to the
Document Foundation, because that's what Oracle clearly implied in their
last press release and what they told us (informally). This has to be
very clear from now on. We are still open for future discussions, of
course, but what you seem to imply is that conditions for a cooperation
would require the document foundation to assign copyright (the
contributions of the LibreOffice developers) back to Oracle again.
No, I never thought this, let alone write, let alone imply.
if we find a way to cooperate, I can assure you that the
condition will not be that we give our copyright to Oracle.
Of course. I'll retry.
If the Document Foundation wants to live in the real world, it will have
to discuss with companies that work on OpenOffice.org and its
derivatives (and this is peculiar to the OpenOffice.org codebase, so
examples taken from elsewhere might not fit).
Now, without copyright assignment/agreement (granted by the LibreOffice
developers to the Document Foundation), the Document Foundation will be
in the awkward situation I described: it manages a product (LibreOffice)
but cannot represent the LibreOffice developers since it doesn't own the
This makes it a weaker player: if the Document Foundation MANAGED, say,
20% of the "OOo+LibreOffice" code, then its "weight" in talks with
corporations can be proportional to it. But if it merely REPRESENTS 20%
of the code but still any decisions must be ratified by the individual
developers, its "weight" will be much lower.
Do you need an example? Think of a "happy ending" where, to the benefit
of users, OOo and all derivatives merge in a common project. There are
many stakeholders (Oracle, IBM, Novell, Red Hat, Redflag, the Document
Foundation...) and they might agree on a new, free, license with some
special provisions due to the long history of OOo. Now, without
copyright assignments/agreements every stakeholder would be able to join
the unified project except the Document Foundation. By choosing against
copyright assignments/agreements you are killing this dream... And I
can't see how the Document Foundation could realistically say it is open
to discuss with companies in this setting.
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to firstname.lastname@example.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
- Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document Foundation (continued)
Impressum (Legal Info)
: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images
on this website are licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License
This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is
licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2
"LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are
registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are
in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective
logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use
thereof is explained in our trademark policy