Re: [reSIProcate] copyright over reSIProcate...
An AUTHORS file has been added to the repo
So far I've just extracted the list of committer user IDs from svn log -
it would be good if people could edit the file to add their full name
and email address
On 14/05/12 21:22, Matthias Moetje wrote:
> I also would object moving to a GPL license…
>
>
>
> Matthias Moetje
>
>
>
> *From:*resiprocate-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:resiprocate-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Scott
> Godin
> *Sent:* Montag, 14. Mai 2012 15:24
> *To:* Daniel Pocock
> *Cc:* resiprocate-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; gjasny@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* Re: [reSIProcate] copyright over reSIProcate...
>
>
>
> There has been plenty of talk in the past about moving to a BSD-3 clause
> so that we can be GPL compatible and use a more standard software
> license than Vovida. From what I remember the Vovida license had some
> compatibility issues with GPL (it's likely due to the 4th clause). I
> believe what was previously discussed was that every committer/author
> would need to be contacted and give their permission to switch the
> license blocks - and no one has taken this on yet. I believe that
> dropping the 4th clause of the Vovida block would equate to the same
> thing. I'm not sure how many companies would be involved in this
> permission gathering work as well (ie. Purplecomm, Jasomi, CounterPath,
> etc...). I've been contributing new project code under the new BSD
> 3-clause, in anticipation we might eventually get the entire project
> move to BSD 3-clause. I know many of the original authors would support
> this.
>
>
>
> I'm OK with the generalization of 'author' in clause 3 for any work's
> I've committed, and I can't see anyone disagreeing to this.
>
>
>
> I have no interest in moving to a GPL license.
>
>
>
> Scott
>
> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 6:01 PM, Daniel Pocock <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> For the Debian package, and likely for other purposes, it is important
> to do an audit of the copyright contributions and respective license terms
>
> I've had a go at this - but I'd really like to make sure I haven't
> missed anyone, so please speak up if I have.
>
> It appears that the VOCAL license is really just the BSD license with:
>
> - the University name replaced with Vovida
> - an extra clause (4) reinforcing the restriction on use of the name
> Vovida/VOCAL
>
> Other contributors (myself, SIP Spectrum, Plantronics and possibly
> others) appear to have granted identical license terms except:
>
> - using their own names within the place of Vovida
> - not always adding the fourth clause (which appears to just restate the
> third clause of the BSD license anyway)
>
> This brings me to raise a few queries:
>
> a) could we generalise the license text, while retaining individual
> copyright? E.g.:
>
> Copyright (c) 2012 <YOUR NAME HERE>
> ...
> 3. Neither the name of the author nor the names of contributors
> may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software
> without specific prior written permission.
>
> Notice it says `the author' rather than repeating the author's name from
> the copyright at the top. Although this change is trivial, if we don't
> do it, we technically have different licenses for different source files.
>
> b) can we drop clause (4) from the Vovida license?
>
> c) what is the status of Vovida anyway? Is this company still
> registered, did the copyright become the property of the new owners of
> the company, for example, and should the copyright notices be updated?
>
> d) Has there been any discussion about granting the rights to some
> non-profit association, rather than having bits of code each copyrighted
> by individual contributors? I'm not necessarily advocating this
> approach, but some projects have gone that way.
>
> e) do any active contributors feel they would prefer to put their future
> contributions under GPL2 or GPL3 terms? This does not in any way
> undermine the rights of previous contributors or existing users of the
> previous releases of the stack. It would mean that anyone using a
> future release of the stack would be obliged to open source any code
> they write linking to the stack.
>
> Here is a link to the copyright summary for Debian:
>
> http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=collab-maint/resiprocate.git;a=blob_plain;f=debian/copyright;hb=HEAD
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> resiprocate-devel mailing list
> resiprocate-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:resiprocate-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> https://list.resiprocate.org/mailman/listinfo/resiprocate-devel
>
>
>