Re: [tdf-discuss] How Close Is TDF...? [WAS Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?]

Hi,

Robert Burrell Donkin wrote on 2011-06-09 12.22:

> > In addition, such topics could be covered by a contract. I can imagine,
> > without speaking officially for the German association here, that there
> > would have been no problem in signing a contract that sets certain
> > limitations on what could be done with the assets. Like "You have to keep
> > the assets, do not sell them, and do not make closed source out of things.
> > If you cannot manage them at some point in the future, you have to hand them
> > over to another entity taking care of that.".
>
> True but requires a level of trust in the corporate counter-party (for
> anything more than a simple and clean contract). Too often, just
> nothing more than a move in the game...

I guess a slight risk that needs to be taken care of exists in all 
constellations. In the worst (!) situation, Apache could die as 
foundation, so could TDF. For TDF, it is rather unlikely, as German 
foundations are built in a way they can not vanish that easily. That's 
why the incorporation takes so long, and that's exactly why we've voted 
for Germany. Once you're established, you are approved that your budgets 
and statutes are safe that a long-lasting foundation is nearly guaranteed.

> > The question is similar to "What would be if Apache Foundation stopped to
> > exist tomorrow?".
>
> (Each member has the information required to quickly reboot an ASF clone)

Sure, but what would happen to the assets, as the "reboot" would a 
different legal entity?

What I want to say: I guess the theoretical risks are as high for Apache 
than for any other foundation, including TDF.

> Will TDF be in a position to easily clone and reboot without serious
> damage to the wider ecosystem?

Well, normally, it is not needed, as - see above - German foundations 
are built in a very stable way. However, in the worst case, I think the 
situation would be similar to other foundations. The knowledge is 
public, so anyone could do what we have done. The only question is the 
legal assets, but that would happen to every entity and foundation. 
Apache would have the same struggles we would have in the very unlikely 
event of closing the foundation.

> > I guess it depends on the type of the exact license. An asset transfer is
> > "more" than a license, and gives more safety and stability,
>
> IMHO the choice between licensing and ownership is not so simple, and
> there are times when licensing has advantages...

Sure. The transfer of ownership in the letter of intent was one option, 
but for sure a license, if crafted carefully, could serve similar options.

> If a legal dispute bankrupted TDF, what would prevent assets
> transferred being sold?

The law. Even with the currently existing association there are rules 
for what the existing property has to be used, in our case public, 
chartibable purposes, that serve similar purposes as we do. So, selling 
them to a corporation would be *not* possible when the association gets 
bankrupt. I guess that it's even more strict for foundations what you 
can do with your assets.

> Could you expand on the precise meaning of "relicensing" in this case?

Basically, what you received from Oracle:
Instead of LGPLv3, the code you have been granted has been (re)licensed 
unter the Apache license. We asked for having it (re)licensed under the 
LGPLv3+/MPL. So, we didn't ask for an exclusive license, nor a copyright 
transfer, but rather for having the existing code licensed under a 
different license, just as it happened with you afterwards.

> AIUI Trademarks have to be defended and maintained. A transfer
> therefore implies costs (above an unlimited license, say) but allows
> tighter control.

I know, but we have the legal options of maintaining and defeating 
trademarks. Actually, if that side-note is allowed, I am the one who 
started approaching the download fraud sites back in 2008 or 2009, in my 
role as Marketing Project (back then) Co-Lead. So, I am not totally 
unexperienced in this area. ;-)

> Does TDF own rights to the LibreOffice brand?

Yes. "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered 
trademarks in the EU, other applications pending:

http://esearch.oami.europa.eu/copla/trademark/data/1/1/009444571

(It still speaks of "OpenOffice.org Deutschland e.V." as the name change 
is pending at the registry court; afterwards, the trademark application 
will read "Freies Office Deutschland e.V.")

Florian

--
Florian Effenberger <floeff@documentfoundation.org>
Steering Committee and Founding Member of The Document Foundation
Tel: +49 8341 99660880 | Mobile: +49 151 14424108
Skype: floeff | Twitter/Identi.ca: @floeff

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+help@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted