Re: licensing and CLA

Le Vendredi 15 Ao=FBt 2003 06:08, Zach Welch a =E9crit :
> Hi all,
>
> Here are some brief and jumbled thoughts I wanted to share, after the
> initial (and mostly negative) responses to the idea of dual-licensing
> and CLAs.  If the rest are silent supporters, that's great, but I'd love
> to actually hear you help me make the case - or simply voice your support.

I have responses from French people who tell me they won't participate only=
=20
because of dual licensing. They are not so far way not to tell them that=20
there are reasons for that

>  [...]

> * Ideally, I wish all the software could be free software.  Even if such
> becomes the reality, the cost of developing that software will never be
> free, and development organizations will always need to derive revenue
> somehow.
>
> * A non-profit can be run like a business, just the revenues go
> exclusively to further the cause, not help line shareholders pockets.
> This foundation will be driven like a business; its business plan will
> be continually update with all of the traditional aspects used to drive
> an organization forward.

Until now, I agree with you.

>
> * Any relicensing would take place in the future, could be required to
> be voted upon by the community of members.  I do not want the foundation
> to be able to arbitrarily relicense the technology I help develop for it
> any more than I expect others would want that to happen.

It should be great to tell it correctly or we will lose value guys. I think=
=20
that it is important to give enough power to the foundation and the communi=
ty=20
to drive its ouwn business accordingly to the evolution of the time, the=20
economy and the technology. But, like many contributers, I can't accept my=
=20
job to be sold, licensed differently from what I wanted without my prior=20
permission.

> * I also own a embedded Linux consultancy.  I want to be able to say
> that non-GPL is an option - and that is an option for those works that I
> create by myself from scratch and without outside contributions.

> * For Zynot technology, I would happily arrange to pay a per-unit
> royalty (or just regular wads of cash) if a client insisted for non-GPL
> terms.  This is not an unreasonable scenario for an embedded OS vendor,
> though one I would fight against (and would turn down if enough pure
> open source contracts were available).

Explained like that, why not. This is the pattern of TrollTech (Norway). Th=
e=20
QT stuff is under GPL for Linux, non-GPL for Mac and Windows and Linux if=20
asked. But under Linux all their first job is GPL.

> * Such terms would be approved by the membership when that day comes.
> Such would be above and beyond licensing of our yet to be developed
> brand name and image.
>
> * While the reality of business is that other licenses are viable (even
> those labeled as "closed"), the foundation will only fund the
> development of open source software.  Non-GPL is only a licensing option
> that gives us revenue, support would obviously be only under the GPL.

Tell it lowder please! I agree with you and I agree with this plan. And I=20
support it.

>
> * The ability to relicense under non-GPL terms is only one reason for
> using a CLA; it also provides a means for accountability with regard to
> IP disputes, either with closed use of GPL or with contributions with
> submarine patents.

Sorry, what is CLA?

> * I do not believe that having a free-for-all copyright scheme (which is
> what you have without CLAs) is either prudent or acceptable for a
> business to operate.  Such scattered control prevents the code from ever
> being re-used in non-GPL contexts.
>
> * The recent SCO lawsuit serves as a sign that we ally ourselves though
> such community organizations such as Zynot, providing united
> accountability of our actions.  The CLA serves as this foundation for
> better protecting the community.
>
> * There has been an annoying trend of certain embedded device vendors
> not immediately providing source code for products that obviously
> contain GPL source code.  While many cases get resolved amicably, the
> foundation should be empowered to protect that works derived from Zynot
> remain open.
>
> * Hypothetically speaking: If re-licensing were taken out of
> consideration (i.e. Zynot is GPL-only), would I still want CLAs?
> Absolutely, as the language goes beyond the realm of licensing; however,
> the title becomes conspicuously inappropriate.
>
>
> * I've heard rumors that rewording of the CLA might be happening soon,
> from which Zynot could benefit.  I am not in a hurry to see these
> signed, as the terms do specify all past contributions.
>
> * I am trying to convey what I perceive as a real need for the
> organization, bearing in mind that I personally feel this is the right
> thing to do for open source in the long term.
>
> I hope these spark more pointed lines of conversation that can help us
> move these topics along to some sort of conclusion.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Zach


=2D-=20
LINUX BUSINESS UNIT
http://www.teamlog.com
(+33) 476 613 709 / (+33) 680 587 187