[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [kDev] KendraBase update...

Title: RE: [kDev] KendraBase update...

I'm not saying GPL or nothing, and I do agree about Kendra's requirement for a recursive license. There seems to be nothing to stop Microsoft from using the code in certain circumstances (they already distribute code built on open systems - the C++ STL for one) so long as the license isn't onerous (and if it is that would defeat the point of Kendra anyway).

I guess that the only proviso that I am saying is that the copyright should reside with the creator in a normal way. If Kendra pays for code to be written then that is assigned to them (in the normal way), but if I have some code that I give to Kendra (or my company does) then that copyright resides with me (or my company). I'm happy that to be incorporated into Kendra I would license that code to Kendra to license on with whatever license Kendra uses (or I wouldn't have given it), but I will not assign copyright to Kendra to then license on.

I hope that's clear(ish)?

Kirit Sælensminde - Obsideon Limited
http://www.obsideon.com ICQ:10009115 Messenger:ks(at)obsideon.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Harris [mailto:daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 20 December 2003 17:51
To: k-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [kDev] KendraBase update...

The intention is not to restrict the developer in any way so having
them assign code to Kendra Foundation and having them ask for
permission to use it elsewhere would not work, agreed.

Remember, all I want the license for is to protect the developers and
Kendra Foundation with a recursive disclaimer. If it weren't for that
I'd want to issue this code in to the public domain.

I want Microsoft to be able to incorporate this core KendraBase code
into their systems with minimal hassle. As a developer are you happy to
see that happen if you have freely contributed to it?

Kendra's aim is not to create a world of free software - a la GNU. Our
aim is to increase interoperability by minimising barriers, hoops and

By saying that we *only* use the GPL we introduce barriers, real or
hyped, but either way, barriers.

So, are you saying *only* GPL? And, if so, why?

Cheers Daniel

On Dec 20, 2003, at 4:10 am, Kirit Saelensminde wrote:
> ... I wouldn't assign code to Kendra, but I might put it out under a
> license like GPL - after all, if there is some other project that it
> would come in handy for I wouldn't want to get permission from Kendra
> to use code that I'd freely given.