Re: [Gnu-arch-users] GNU copyright assignment

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Thu, 2004-10-21 at 14:00, James Blackwell wrote:
> jblack:
> >> Speaking of which, how far along is the process of getting everybody with
> >> copyright in arch to assign copyright to the FSF? Also, what's going to
> >> happen to code that isn't handed over? 
>  
> Zenaan: 
> > Rather than "letting life do it to me", how about getting
> > clear on what _you_ want, making suggestions, and discussing
> > on the list?
> 
> Grin. What I want is for arch development to move as fast as possible,
> so fast that it beats all the others by default.

:)

> Regarding Tom's "assign copyright to the FSF idea", I don't have an
> opinion that I would like to express at this point. Before I do, I'd
> like to know how he'll work out the details of the following two points: 
> 
> 1. How does he plan on chasing down the previous contributors and
>    getting a copyright assignment? 
> 
> 2. Is he going to follow through and remove code contributed by people
>    that he either can't find or that refuse to assign copyright to him
>    or the FSF 
> 
> These are both necessary steps of the process, and have to happen. As
> such, the question need to be asked.
> 
> These are both _very_ important questions, as can be proved by the
> ongoing SCO vs. The World copyright case with the Linux kernel. That's
> why Linus is investing in a new "follow the bouncing ball" for code
> ownership.  I personally don't want to get hauled into court 24 months
> from now because some guy named Barry McLoy tries to make a 70 yard punt
> as a last ditch effort to save his business.

Agreed.

> > Tom wants this to be a GNU project.
> 
> It already is. I think that was an excellent decision.
> 
> > This has consequences - the primary one being that copyright
> > is assigned to the FSF (for "GNU arch proper").
> 
> That used to be obligatory, but these days its optional.

Ahah. Some new information for me. Thanks.

> > What sort of community do you want? Who do you plan to be in
> > this community? Or will it forever depend on what others say,
> > what others do and what others decide?
> 
> I'd like to take those in reverse order if you don't mind. 
> 
> When it comes to which voluntary communities that people choose to
> participate in, the goals and the action of the community do count;
> after all, who would remain in a voluntary community that one thinks is
> doing the wrong thing? 

Of course, I agree. I was hoping my point was rhetorical/ self
explanatory.

> Regarding deciding who's in this community, I don't think that anybody
> has the authority to decide that. And if there was somebody, I certainly
> wouldn't want it to be me! 

I would say, each person decides for himself. I din't think we disagree
here...

however the question was not "who's in this community" but the
rhetorical "who do you plan to be (in this community)" - which hinted at
my belief that you were being other than constructive in the
conversation. This belief may have been misplaced.

> Lastly, for what sort of community would I want? Well, this may sound
> silly, but I think I'd really go for some sort of victorian style of
> utopia. 

Sounds possibly interesting, but you'll have to elaborate
since I'm not sure what that is, being a 30 year old
computer programmer, and not much of a movie buff :)

cheers
zen