| Author |
Message |
|
| Xavier Antoviaque |
 Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:08 pm |
|
|
Joined: 15 Nov 2006
Posts: 396
|
Jonathan Corbet, from Linux Weekly News, was yesterday evening in the chat, for a collective interview. The resulting article can be found here; it is subscriber-only until December 14.
However, to let us read it, he sent me this link:
http://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/212810/97a197f6da903d0e/
Gg all. ;p |
_________________
Xavier. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| desdichado |
| Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:12 pm |
|
|
Joined: 26 Nov 2006
Posts: 39
|
thx maybe I don't understand well but could someone explain this line to me:
Quote: There is some sentiment in the Free Ryzom community for transferring the copyrights to the non-profit group, but it seems that this decision has not yet been made. What is clear is that all of the code would be immediately released under the GNU General Public License (with the "any later version" language).
What is the sense of "owning" a code when it's under GNUGPL? Or maybe did he meant that technically the code will be owned by mekensleep then immediatly released under gnugpl? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| sfb |
| Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 5:46 pm |
|
|
Joined: 28 Nov 2006
Posts: 46
Location: Minnesota, USA
|
desdichado,
Your assumption is mostly correct. Technically Mekensleep (or the company that is formed with Mekensleep and Valentin, whatever bubbles up in the end) will "own" the code.
You are also some-what correct in saying that it doesn't make a difference if said company immediately releases the code to GNU GPL with the "any later version" language. With one exception.
This exception is why I (and I think a few others) have raised the sentiment of transferring the copyrights to the non-profit group. NeL, the engine behind Ryzom, was released under GNU GPL but this didn't stop investors from calling a stop to the opening of the source code. This was legally possible because Nevrax owned the copyrights to the source and therefore were fully within their rights to dual license NeL so that Ryzom would not be affected by the GPL licensing. This is why Ryzom was not released.
That being said our fear is that the history of Nevrax has the ability to repeat itself. I know that Olivier Lejade of Mekensleep was at Nevrax and I also know that Olivier Lejade was one of the largest proponents behind GPLing NeL. I also know that Mekensleep's software is all FOSS as well and that with Mekensleep he has stuck with his vision of Free software.
But that doesn't mean we can ignore the fact that the possibility would still remain for history, Nevrax closing Ryzom, to repeat itself. It's a minor concern, since we will have Ryzom to-date in GPL, but it is still a concern if the company running (Mekensleep or whomever) becomes the major driving force behind NeL and Open-Ryzom. Losing this partnership could prove devestating to the Open-Ryzom effort. It has proven disasterous to the NeL community - take it from someone who is in that community.
That all being said... we (the community) still end up 'owning' the GPL'd strain of the software and any way you look at this it is a win. Also we (the players) have a proven company (Mekensleep) helping run the show behind the commercial Ryzom shards and first-hand experience (Olivier Lejade and Xavier) involved in the running of the Ryzom shard. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Xavier Antoviaque |
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 12:54 pm |
|
|
Joined: 15 Nov 2006
Posts: 396
|
sfb wrote: This exception is why I (and I think a few others) have raised the sentiment of transferring the copyrights to the non-profit group. NeL, the engine behind Ryzom, was released under GNU GPL but this didn't stop investors from calling a stop to the opening of the source code. This was legally possible because Nevrax owned the copyrights to the source and therefore were fully within their rights to dual license NeL so that Ryzom would not be affected by the GPL licensing. This is why Ryzom was not released.
I agree; I would *hate* to see this happening. What do you think of transfering the ownership to an organization like the FSF ? I haven't asked them (even if FSF US has sent an email proposing to take care of the licensing part), but in my opinion it would be an even better insurance that this doesn't happen. |
_________________
Xavier. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| sfb |
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 2:59 pm |
|
|
Joined: 28 Nov 2006
Posts: 46
Location: Minnesota, USA
|
Xavier,
At the onset of this I tried to contact someone I worked with on another FOSS project that worked for the FSF - unfortunately he no longer works for them but he did get me in contact with his replacement. If you have any specific questions I can relay them. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
