Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (hermes.apache.org: domain of gcaig-general@m.gmane.org
 designates 80.91.229.2 as permitted sender)
To: general@incubator.apache.org
From: Vic Cekvenich <vic.cekvenich@portalvu.com>
Subject: Repost-Re: Derby code copyright question
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 22:05:26 -0500
Lines: 53
Message-ID: <ciavtm$oen$1@sea.gmane.org>
References: <32D5845A745BFB429CBDBADA57CD41AF071B81A5@ussjex01.amer.bea.com>
Reply-To: vic.cekvenich@portalvu.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.3 (Windows/20040803)
In-Reply-To: <32D5845A745BFB429CBDBADA57CD41AF071B81A5@ussjex01.amer.bea.com> 
Sender: news <news@sea.gmane.org>

Jim Barnett wrote:

>>  
>> Also, having owners assign copyrights to ASF would probably be a 
>> mistake.  First, ASF really doesn't have the resources or (I would 
>> guess) the interest in enforcing copyrights assigned to it when a 
>> third party uses the contributed work outside the scope of the Apache 
>> license.  Second, so long as the author/contributor retains ownership 
>> of the copyright, the author also retains some degree of protection 
>> against prospective shifts in Apache's out-bound license terms.  In 
>> other words if tomorrow Apache decided that the FreeBSD-style license 
>> model was pass� and that the GPL model is preferable, as 
>> assignee-owner Apache could make that shift, even if the original 
>> contributor of the work specifically relied upon Apache's commitment 
>> to the FreeBSD-style model instead of a GPL model when making the 
>> contribution.  If the original author retains ownership of the 
>> contribution, and were Apache to radically alter its license model in 
>> a way undesirable to the contributor, the contributo
>
> r could simply offer its original contribution via another open source 
> organization and/or license model more consistent with it's perceived 
> strategic interests. 
>
>>  
>> I am very curious as to what others think about this issue, and am 
>> available for e-mail or phone consultation.  Thank you for allowing 
>> me to offer my $0.02.
>>  
>> Regards,
>>  
>> James Barnett
>> Senior Counsel
>> BEA Systems, Inc.
>> 408-570-8442
>>  
>
>
In general... the goal of O/S AFAIK  "it's our sofware, and you can't 
take it away from us once you give it to us" and that is what the 
license should do.

ASF should own it and if they chose to *not protect* it (goal is to 
share) or change the license, great. Else it's a slipery slope and 
resource intensive.


.V


-- 
Please post on Rich Internet Applications User Interface (RiA/SoA) 
<http://www.portalvu.com>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org