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

2010/11/7 Michael Meeks <michael.meeks@novell.com>:
> Hi Roberto,

Hi Michael,

> On Sat, 2010-11-06 at 14:27 +0100, Roberto Resoli wrote:
> > The crucial point is not JCA/CLA ecc. but what we expect from the Foundation
> > and what we want the governance of the Foundation should be in the future.
>
>        Well, these are interesting topics of course; but somehow they have
> been intertwined in people's minds.
>
> > It's not a black box, we can form it in the way we want, but it should have a
> > motivation for existing,other than being a mere repository of code. I
> > don't feel the need for a foundation that does nothing really useful.
>
>        I agree having a useful foundation is better than a non-useful one :-)
> I'm convinced though that usefulness is an orthogonal problem to the
> need (or otherwise) for copyright ownership.

I agree that copyright ownership is not a necessary condition to have
an useful foundation, but in my opinion these are not orthogonal items at all;
the foundation can be much more effective in its action, because
owning copyright
permits much more effective action. For example: if someone steals me the
code I contributed, it would be very difficult to excercise my rights,
particularly if
the stealing subject is a big Company; the situation is even much more
difficult if the
copyright is dispersed. In "why assign" page form fsf[1] I read:

"... And despite the broad right of distribution conveyed by the GPL,
enforcement of copyright is generally not possible for distributors:
only the copyright holder or someone having assignment of the
copyright can enforce the license . If there are multiple authors of a
copyrighted work, successful enforcement depends on having the
cooperation of all authors. "

> > It's not warm, it's not cosy, but in my opinion could be more useful.
> > It could represent me in a much more effective way. A legal entity can receive
> > money, can hire lawyers, can conduct  marketing campaigns, ....
>
>        A foundation that owns no code can represent you, inasmuch as it
> commands your trust and loyalty. Similarly there is no need to own
> anything in order to receive money, hire lawyers, conduct marketing
> campaigns: all of which can be good things of course.

What I said about "being an useful foundation" i referred to the fact
that, after
a month, TDF still doesn't have a legal status, and I don't see any
notice of an action in this
direction (please point me to related information if I'm wrong).
Without a legal status,
i think TDF cannot do almost anything effective, including receiving
donations and
possibly talking to governement entities.

This is also a prerequisite for eventually (even as an option, as
someone is suggesting here)
receive Copyright Assignments.

> > I think LibO is too important to let things going in a random way.
> > Random meaning that possibly some big contributors will dominate
> > the project, being the only having the adequate "contribution power"
>
>        The choice to not aggregate ownership is a deliberate one, and is by no
> means a random choice, it follows the most outstandingly successful Free
> Software projects of our time.

I understand that this is a deliberate action of course, and please,
don't think
that I want coinvince you or any other that my thoughts about CA are better;
my intention is only to present some aspects that may have been shadowed
by the need to attract contributions.

> > As I told other times, giving power to FSF or Mozilla instead of let
> > TDF taking it, is not the best thing to do.
>
>        Nonsense; the 'TDF' still has the power to re-license the code all it
> likes - vested in the consent of its members.

Mmm; my worries are very practical; as I said, Mozilla relicencing
took 4 years and a half;
what time would take to relicense about ten times that code?

> The fact that we also
> trust the FSF and the Mozilla guys to do the right thing in future is
> purely an added bonus.

Yes, I meant only that others (i trust them too, but this is not the
point) and not
the foundation we are establishing *now*, will have that power.
It sounds a bit strange to me.

>        Of course - that power is vested in the people that really wrote the
> code, documentation, translation etc. which is IMHO where it belongs.

The power is there in any case, but dispersed and not enforceable,
without a strong
(copyright owning) Foundation.

My last words about this, I definitely like more coding that talking about that.
Long live to LibO! (under a strong TDF, I hope)

bye,
rob

>        ATB,
>
>                Michael.

[1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html

--
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 ***