On Sun, 2004-08-08 at 11:53 +0100, Rui Miguel Seabra wrote: > On Sat, 2004-08-07 at 13:52 +0200, Mikael Hallendal wrote: > > On lör, 2004-08-07 at 12:44 +0100, Rui Miguel Seabra wrote: > > > What I'm complaining about is about including a gnome module that > > > developers who want to contribute must give away from the community > > > their code without anything in return. > > > > "without anything in return"? > > Yes. There's nothing they give you don't have already without the > copyright assignment. Have you ever think that without that document perhaps they would never released evolution as GPL software? or even worse, Ximian would never developed it. Following your point, we could say that the ones (like you and I) that are not contributing any evolution code are not giving them anything in return for their GPL software, under you point of view, we are really evils for not doing that (I don't believe that's true). As Alan and Richard has stated here, the Novell/Ximian document has some faults but not the ones you are talking about, it's just a patent problem and as Miguel said, they will work to fix it as soon as possible. If I'm understanding all mails, Richard Stallman (I think it's harder anyone understand better the GPL than him) said there is not problem with giving to Novell/Ximian the evolution copyright if they fix the document as he suggested: 1.- Patent problem 2.- DFSL as Debian understand it instead of OSI license. I think we could end this discussion now and wait for an official Novell reaction. If they don't fix it, then we could just kick evolution from GNOME Desktop or just fork it but at this moment I think we don't have any solid argument against evolution inclusion. Cheers. -- Carlos Perelló Marín Debian GNU/Linux Sid (PowerPC) Linux Registered User #121232 mailto:carlos pemas net || mailto:carlos gnome org http://carlos.pemas.net Valencia - Spain
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part