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

[Sean /The RIMBoy/ <sean@rimboy.com>]

On Thu, 15 Nov 101 mike808@users.sourceforge.net wrote:

> > 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.

My apologies for not making that clearer.  I view SF / LC / /. / FM / NF,
etc as all VA.  On top of the SF stuff taking place, LC was essentially
shut down and everyone put out to pasture (or wishing they were, were it
not for the fact the job market sucks).  

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

Well, copyright is not an issue per se.  I'm more concered about VA's
recent stance with developers of SF than anything.  I could go on shedding
tears in my beer over LC, but it's time to move on.  We've got the chance
to do something better without their financial problems overshadowing the
vision.

> 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.

I've covered this base, thankfully.  And I'll put the two articles that
just 404'd (within the last month) on my site.  IIRC, the final statement
was that because we published for LC then it goes under the open content
license.  I don't recall the specifics but in short it was agreeable to me
as the author.

> As for the SFEE issue, I don't see why they need copyright assignment for code.

I think they want the assignment so they can go do as they please.  I know
many people are not happy about what it is VA wants them to do, and thus
are not agreeing to their terms.  

http://www.advogato.org/article/376.html

is a very interesting read, on top of their previous one that led to the
guy from SF stating we're not dead yet!

> 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.

As you've pointed out, it's not in their shareholder's interest to
negotiate.  It's the bottom line.

> > ph33r my google sk1llz
> 
> Mad propz 2 da Googlyzer.

werd.

And since we've been to google today, Happy Birthday Monet!

Sean...

-- 
Believing I had supernatural powers, I slammed into a brick wall.
	--Paul Simon
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
KG4NRC
www.rimboy.com		<-- Your source for the crap you know you need.

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