[liblouis-liblouisxml] Re: LGPL license
- From: "John Gardner" <john.gardner@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <liblouis-liblouisxml@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2014 07:10:41 -0700
Hello Michael and all, I did not intend to start a firestorm with my
copyright requests. Unfortunately I sent out the request letter in haste
just as I started some major travel, so I have very little time for a few
days to ponder this issue. I'm sure we can find a solution, but I need some
legal help, and that will also take a while.
Be well all. This project was not initially well organized, and changes are
needed to get it into good shape, but we all really need to understand the
issues.
John G
-----Original Message-----
From: liblouis-liblouisxml-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:liblouis-liblouisxml-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Michael
Whapples (Redacted sender "mwhapples@xxxxxxx" for DMARC)
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2014 3:05 AM
To: liblouis-liblouisxml@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [liblouis-liblouisxml] Re: LGPL license
I can understand the reluctance to hand over copyright, I have some
concerns as well.
To hand over copyright on future contributions is less of an issue, at
least at the time of making the contribution I know what the situation
is and thus can decide whether to make it or whether to head along the
route of a fork as permitted by LGPL.
As for what ViewPlus/APH/AbilitiesSoft are doing, well all my current
work on liblouis and liblouisutdml is being done on behalf of APH. For
LibLouisUTDML this seems to be the main contributions to source code at
the moment.
Finally, I don't think private responses should be forwarded to the
list, they may have been made as a private response precisely for the
reason one wants it to be private.
Michael Whapples
On 19/06/2014 09:21, Mesar Hameed wrote:
> Hi John G,
>
> I have to agree with Jamie here,
> A lot of people outside the three organizations have contributed
> substantially to the
> project over the years,, and
> while moving to lgpl v2.1 is something that I am willing to accept, giving
up copyright ownership is not really something that I am happy about.
>
> This means that peoples work is considered free labour, and the three
> named organizations mentioned could at any point change the licence and
> go closed source in
> the future which might be against the spirit of the original project.
>
> In addition, since we moved to the new maintainership, it is not clear
> how any of the three organizations are actively contributing to the
> project.
>
> Also any private responces that you might receive should be forwarded to
> the list so that they are publically documented.
>
> Thanks,
> Mesar
> On Thu 19/06/14,12:23, James Teh wrote:
>> On 19/06/2014 11:55 AM, John Gardner wrote:
>>> well I hope I mean sole for the code base.
>> I think not. There have been contributions to the main code from
>> others, including myself. For example, I've fixed quite a few bugs
>> in the input/output position mapping code. We never agreed to assign
>> copyright, which means the copyright is owned by the individual
>> contributors.
>>
>> Jamie
>>
>> --
>> James Teh
>> Executive Director, NV Access Limited
>> Ph +61 7 3149 3306
>> www.nvaccess.org
>> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/NVAccess
>> Twitter: @NVAccess
>> SIP: jamie@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>> For a description of the software, to download it and links to
>> project pages go to http://www.abilitiessoft.com
For a description of the software, to download it and links to
project pages go to http://www.abilitiessoft.com
For a description of the software, to download it and links to
project pages go to http://www.abilitiessoft.com
Other related posts:
