| 1 |
On 12/17/2012 06:47 PM, Alec Warner wrote: |
| 2 |
>> Moot point once you go over the country border, for each country and each |
| 3 |
>> border. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> I believe Rich means legal simplicity from the Foundation's point of |
| 6 |
> view. If the Foundation were to re-license, we would have to contact |
| 7 |
> all contributors. That is complex and a lot of work, so that avenue is |
| 8 |
> basically never available. Plus we have to do it every time we take a |
| 9 |
> similar action. If we had some sort of agreement, that would be a |
| 10 |
> one-time deal per contributor, and it would make it 'legally simpler' |
| 11 |
> for the Foundation to do these things. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Yet, as said many times, USA is not the world and Germany has a quite |
| 14 |
different way to handle this stuff, to name a nation with lots of |
| 15 |
contributors. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> I actually think copyright *assignment* is the wrong term to use. In |
| 18 |
> general I like what Google does for their open source work. You keep |
| 19 |
> your copyright on your work, but grant the entity (Google in this |
| 20 |
> case) a worldwide license to do whatever they want (or in the |
| 21 |
> Foundations case, a license to do some limited things that the |
| 22 |
> Foundation wants to make their lives easier.) I'm not saying that is |
| 23 |
> what the Foundation is planning; but at least it is the most appealing |
| 24 |
> to me. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
That is what you can do at best. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
lu |
Archives