[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: linux.com (probably OT, was Re: SourceForge drifting (?))
> 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.
Valuenet Web Mail.
To unsubscribe, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org with
"unsubscribe silug-discuss" in the body.