Re: linux.com (probably OT, was Re: SourceForge drifting (?))

[mike808@users.sourceforge.net]

> On Wed, 14 Nov 2001, Sean /The RIMBoy/ wrote:
> > That is how a few others and myself recounted it,

I apologize, but I wish you would have cleared up that you were talking about 
VA and Linux.com, and not the SFEE product-ization the original thread
was talking about.

Maybe "the right thing" for VA to do would be to re-assign copyrights for 
linux.com content back to the original authors?

Do you GPLDoc your articles now? Might be a good time to use clauses that
rescind copyright assignment if the assignee goes under, get sold, folds, or 
changes ownership or corporate structure. i.e. a one-time non-transferable 
license. Or a time limit on the your assignment of copyright to a publisher
with an escape clause for failure to publish.

As for the SFEE issue, I don't see why they need copyright assignment for code.
I wouldn't give it to them. I would negotiate a dual license for them
to use any contributed code, like TrollTech did with the QT libs. I'm surprised 
they didn't offer one as an alternative.

> ph33r my google sk1llz

Mad propz 2 da Googlyzer.

Mike808/


---------------------------------------------
Valuenet Web Mail.
http://www.valuenet.net/


-
To unsubscribe, send email to majordomo@silug.org with
"unsubscribe silug-discuss" in the body.