Hey All,
At the moment, our licensing in trunk is more of a mess than it ever has been (to my knowledge). Primarily, we have some GPL3 code that has crept in over time, as far back as a year ago. I figured I would bring it up here first so we can see if there is a consensus on contacting the SFC (and/or possibly the SFLC).
We can't release a new version with the licensing as it stands (not that it has been holding up a possible release at this point). So, I think we need to take the plunge and discuss with counsel how to remedy our situation. Also, we may want to discuss doing the "dirty" thing and go the route of copyright assignment moving forward to help prevent this situation again (not my idea, but one I don't disagree with).
This will require a substantial amount of someone's time (as I see it, at the least trying to contact everyone who has contributed previously), but I'm willing to make this my last set of acts on the board before I step down. I was originally planning on holding off for a month and a half until after some vacation time, but, it just needs to get moving sooner rather than later imho.
I'm seeking relevant discussion and a vote to escalate this to the SFC to see if they feel confident enough to take this on. As a tertiary item, once we are well informed, I'm also asking potential permission for use of the foundation's funds for legal services if the costs are within reason and the board agrees that it is an appropriate use of the money.
Obviously I'm an "Aye" on taking it to the SFC.
Cheers, Josh
I fully support this initiative. And I like the idea of copyright assignments.
Another idea to consider would be to have everybody elect a proxy for deciding licensing issues/changes in the future. The only necessary condition, in my opinion, would be to make this proxy sign a document stating it's commitment to keeping the code libre (respecting the 4 essential freedoms) and preserving copyleft to avoid proprietarization of our codebase.
Juca
On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Josh Andler <scislac@...23...> wrote:
Hey All,
At the moment, our licensing in trunk is more of a mess than it ever has been (to my knowledge). Primarily, we have some GPL3 code that has crept in over time, as far back as a year ago. I figured I would bring it up here first so we can see if there is a consensus on contacting the SFC (and/or possibly the SFLC).
We can't release a new version with the licensing as it stands (not that it has been holding up a possible release at this point). So, I think we need to take the plunge and discuss with counsel how to remedy our situation. Also, we may want to discuss doing the "dirty" thing and go the route of copyright assignment moving forward to help prevent this situation again (not my idea, but one I don't disagree with).
This will require a substantial amount of someone's time (as I see it, at the least trying to contact everyone who has contributed previously), but I'm willing to make this my last set of acts on the board before I step down. I was originally planning on holding off for a month and a half until after some vacation time, but, it just needs to get moving sooner rather than later imho.
I'm seeking relevant discussion and a vote to escalate this to the SFC to see if they feel confident enough to take this on. As a tertiary item, once we are well informed, I'm also asking potential permission for use of the foundation's funds for legal services if the costs are within reason and the board agrees that it is an appropriate use of the money.
Obviously I'm an "Aye" on taking it to the SFC.
Cheers, Josh
Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ Inkscape-board mailing list Inkscape-board@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-board
I'm for doing this, I'm a bit worried about how much work it's going to be, but I think that we need to do it at some point. Why not now? :-)
On Fri, 2012-06-29 at 11:40 -0300, Felipe Sanches wrote:
I fully support this initiative. And I like the idea of copyright assignments.
I agree. I think that we should talk about it as a CLA instead of CA. While personally I think that CA is more honest (as CLA does effectively the same thing, but without telling you) it has gotten a lot of bad press, and there is less so with CLAs.
Another idea to consider would be to have everybody elect a proxy for deciding licensing issues/changes in the future. The only necessary condition, in my opinion, would be to make this proxy sign a document stating it's commitment to keeping the code libre (respecting the 4 essential freedoms) and preserving copyleft to avoid proprietarization of our codebase.
I think the assignee would be us, as the Inkscape Foundation/Board with the SFC as the custodial agent. So, we'd would need to state that and make it as part of our charter. I'd have no problem with that and consider it a good idea. I'd rather not say that we'll keep it "GPL vX" and instead say "we'll support the four freedoms and maintaining it as free software."
On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Josh Andler <scislac@...23...> wrote: This will require a substantial amount of someone's time (as I see it, at the least trying to contact everyone who has contributed previously), but I'm willing to make this my last set of acts on the board before I step down. I was originally planning on holding off for a month and a half until after some vacation time, but, it just needs to get moving sooner rather than later imho.
Yes, that's basically it. The probably we'll have is with people who don't agree on the relicense, and then deciding what should happen there. But, I think we need that list before we can make a decision about what to do with it.
I'm seeking relevant discussion and a vote to escalate this to the SFC to see if they feel confident enough to take this on. As a tertiary item, once we are well informed, I'm also asking potential permission for use of the foundation's funds for legal services if the costs are within reason and the board agrees that it is an appropriate use of the money.
+1, I don't think we have a choice, this is something we need to do.
--Ted
I'd rather not say that we'll keep it "GPL vX" and instead say "we'll support the four freedoms and maintaining it as free software."
I would go for "we'll support the four freedoms and maintaining it as free software" if by "maintaining it free software" we make it explicitly clear that it means maintaining some kind of copyleft mechanism to forbid non-free derivative works.
Felipe "Juca" Sanches
On Fri, 2012-06-29 at 12:09 -0300, Felipe Sanches wrote:
I'd rather not say that we'll keep it "GPL vX" and instead say "we'll support the four freedoms and maintaining it as free software."
I would go for "we'll support the four freedoms and maintaining it as free software" if by "maintaining it free software" we make it explicitly clear that it means maintaining some kind of copyleft mechanism to forbid non-free derivative works.
Sure, I wasn't trying to make that final text, more just say that we'll declare our intentions not a specific implementation of them.
--Ted
On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 09:59:28AM -0500, Ted Gould wrote:
On Fri, 2012-06-29 at 11:40 -0300, Felipe Sanches wrote:
I fully support this initiative. And I like the idea of copyright assignments.
I agree. I think that we should talk about it as a CLA instead of CA. While personally I think that CA is more honest (as CLA does effectively the same thing, but without telling you) it has gotten a lot of bad press, and there is less so with CLAs.
I'm with you guys; let contributors keep their copyrights but just require they provide a central body with license authority.
Another idea to consider would be to have everybody elect a proxy for deciding licensing issues/changes in the future. The only necessary condition, in my opinion, would be to make this proxy sign a document stating it's commitment to keeping the code libre (respecting the 4 essential freedoms) and preserving copyleft to avoid proprietarization of our codebase.
I think the assignee would be us, as the Inkscape Foundation/Board with the SFC as the custodial agent. So, we'd would need to state that and make it as part of our charter. I'd have no problem with that and consider it a good idea. I'd rather not say that we'll keep it "GPL vX" and instead say "we'll support the four freedoms and maintaining it as free software."
+1.
If we add this power to the board, I think it really ups the need for doing a new round of elections. Both to give developers some say in who is going to make licensing choices, and to replace inactive or departing members.
On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Josh Andler <scislac@...23...> wrote: This will require a substantial amount of someone's time (as I see it, at the least trying to contact everyone who has contributed previously), but I'm willing to make this my last set of acts on the board before I step down. I was originally planning on holding off for a month and a half until after some vacation time, but, it just needs to get moving sooner rather than later imho.
Yes, that's basically it. The probably we'll have is with people who don't agree on the relicense, and then deciding what should happen there. But, I think we need that list before we can make a decision about what to do with it.
Agreed we need to know how big the problem is. I suspect it's going to be a small percentage of the codebase, so we would just give say a month, after which time the illegal code (at least the original VCS contribution and all edits by that author) must be excised from the codebase.
I'm seeking relevant discussion and a vote to escalate this to the SFC to see if they feel confident enough to take this on. As a tertiary item, once we are well informed, I'm also asking potential permission for use of the foundation's funds for legal services if the costs are within reason and the board agrees that it is an appropriate use of the money.
+1, I don't think we have a choice, this is something we need to do.
Agreed.
Bryce
participants (4)
-
Bryce Harrington -
Felipe Sanches -
Josh Andler -
Ted Gould