Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2010 Archives by date, by thread · List index

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
under discussion.

- 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!).

  Andrea Pescetti.

Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: 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.