On 17/11/2010 Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
What do you think of this idea?
(It does not involve copyright).
Not involving copyright indeed, it doesn't properly address the issues
- It does something good in identifying contributions and warrantying
against violation of third party rights.
- It allows the receiving entity to upgrade the license automatically
(only from LGPL/GPL/AGPL 3 to the next one, and so on) but you can
oppose in the first month after the new license is released; and
this seems to go toward uncertainty, which is bad.
- It is still mandatory paperwork. And mandatory paperwork must be
justified by good reasons, and those in this agreement do not seem
good enough to me, since it's a trade-off that does not empower the
entity enough (of course, this is my point of view!).
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
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