[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

FW: Ozone Doc Project

Sorry about the flood. I do not know what happened but 6 different responses
somehow became 6 responses to the same e-mail. Here's one that did not come
through:

-----Original Message-----
From: Per Nyfelt [mailto:per.nyfelt@nordicwave.com]
Sent: den 11 juni 2001 10:50
To: ozone-dev@ozone-db.org
Subject: RE: Ozone Doc Project




> -----Original Message-----
> From: ozone-dev-owner@ozone-db.org
> [mailto:ozone-dev-owner@ozone-db.org]On Behalf Of Falko Braeutigam
> Sent: den 5 juni 2001 19:54
> To: Per Nyfelt; ozone-dev@ozone-db.org
> Subject: RE: Ozone Doc Project
>
> SMB just holds the copyright for 'the initial code and portions created by
> SMB'. So everybody is free to add his/her copyright to modified
> files and/or
> put his/her copyright on top of newly created files. At least
> this was/is my
> understanding from how (L)GPLed code should be handled.
>
> Another, maybe better, possibilitity to handle the copyright
> problem ist to
> finally switch to a BSD-style license and make 'The Ozone Project' the
> copyright holder. The problem here might be that 'The Ozone
> Project' ist no legal entity. And, it's not sure if ozone is
> big enough to benefit from a BSD (maybe Apache) license and what's
> the benefit of the different licenses anyway.

I think having The Ozone Project holding the Copyright would be the best
thing but since that is not a legal entity as you pointed out I proposed we
assign copyright to SMB. The idea is that there should be legal body that
could claim rights to the product and defend it against unauthorized usage
such as taking the whole code and use it for some purpose without
acknowledging that it is built on Ozone code. I personally see a problem
with several different copyright holders - who has right to what when more
than one entity is involved? It would be much cleaner with one Copyright
holder.

> That said, personally currently I would prefer a BSD-style license but, in
> contrast to Apache, oblique people/projects/products that use
> ozone to give
> prominent notice that they do. So we would no longer focus on
> protecting the
> code (GPL) but from now on focus on popularising our name 'ozone'
> and benefit only from that.
>
> Ideas?

I like that.

Best regards,
Per