Re: [Bkm-devel] License issues (was: Hello and introduction)

[Daniel R. <rem...@ya...>]

Jack, Patrice:

> Thank you for pointing them out. Unfortunately when I tried to
> download the modified BKM the downloads always timed out. So I was not
> yet able to look into that issue myself.

Well, it took me a few hours (gotta love dialup) but...

> Just an explanation for the records: The reason why I did this with
> the DLLs this way is not that I want to hide the source code but that
> I have simply lost the source code to them.

Yes, but that is also an option for keeping certain code (e.g. a Sync2It
module) proprietary also.  While I usually do not like this option at all, if
Sync2It considers their protocol a trade secret, this would allow them to
protect it, while still allowing them to use the rest of Bookmark-Manager in
compliance with the GPL.  Since Jack has already said he wants most of the
changes to be in Bookmark-Manager proper, the only possible sticking point I
saw was the Sync2It protocol...I don't know if it is proprietary or not; Jack
may be able to fill us in.  If it's not, there's no reason for keeping it
separate from Bookmark-Manager.

> There is no such license agreement in the moment. And with your
> (Daniel's) changes I would not even be permitted to grant such a
> license anymore. At least not without some paperwork.

Many GPL projects become very quagmirish after a bunch of people have committed
changes.  I think it's usually smoothest to have copyright assignment to a
maintainer; this is the way BZFlag does it, everything that's committed is
automatically copyright Tim Riker.  I would not be opposed to assigning my
copyrights on modifications to BKM to you.  This would allow us to relicense if
necessary, which could be necessary in situations other than proprietary
code...e.g. if the GPL is found unreasonable in court, or if we decide that an
LGPL would suit it better.  
All this is of course your choice; many projects do operate with distributed
copyright, it just makes it much less flexible.  Some projects want that
inflexibility; gaim for instance did it specifically so that it could never be
licensed under anything but the GPL.  This also removes the responsibility from
the maintainer; e.g. if Tim Riker was to suddenly die, BZFlag would be in quite
a mess if his will didn't say anything about the copyrights.

> Thank you again for pointing this out. I think Jack is going in the
> right direction with integrating the changes into BKM. 

Definately.

> Meanwhile it
> might be good to just upload the source code to the sync2it Web server
> so that we can have a look at it. This does not have to be publicly
> announced.

Actually, there is another option which I had not included in my previous
e-mail.  If no license changes are made, Sync2It has two options: distribute
the source to every Sync2It member who asks (since you must be a Sync2It member
to download the binaries), or stop distribution.  Personally, I don't like the
last option.  I love seeing BKM used.  I only mention it here because that
would allow time for dealing with the other licensing options I had mentioned. 
Of course, if Patrice doesn't want the other options to be used (it's his
call), then you're back to square one: distribute the sources or stop
distributing binaries.

> And thank you Jack for making the changes and joining the development
> team. Who knows if we had ever found out about this changes I you
> didn't...

Yes, thanks for joining.  I think the changes you've made are very worthwhile,
I just want to be sure we don't have license issues floating around to bonk us
in the head in the future.

Sorry for my verbosity, I'd just like to avoid misunderstandings.

--Daniel Remenak

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway 
http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/