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

Re: [kDev] KendraBase update...



Daniel Harris wrote:

What happens if some of the members of these groups are turned off by your assumptions about what they want and hence your choices about what license they should be fed Kendra code under. Can't we simply allow them to choose the license(s) that most suit(s) them for incorporation into their own project? Surely they know best.

If they know best and are happy releasing their own software under their own license, then how has Kendra made any difference? I thought you wanted to create a framework structure under which people could contribute their work in the knowledge they are pushing forwards the streaming media revolution (whilst having their own rights and interests protected)?

On Jan 13, 2004, at 4:42 pm, Phillip Temple wrote:

You can retain copyright but grant a license to someone that allows them to sub-license it to others.


I think that's basically what KF wants here. KF wants to be granted a license by the code-contributor to enable KF to sub-license the code using any/every license with a recursive disclaimer clause.

Not going to happen unless people know what the KF license is going to be. This is why people release software under the GPL in the first place. It protects their work. Otherwise the attitude of a lot of people is that if someone is going to sell their work then they want to get paid a cut!

On Jan 13, 2004, at 5:54 pm, Dave Cridland [Home] wrote:

Technically, I have to officially state that I'm licensing it under the GPL to KF... KF accepts this, and incorporates it into their distribution...


That wont work for KF as it wants to distribute this code under any or every, license or licenses containing a recursive disclaimer clause. And it isn't practical to have every code-contributor go through the 'paper work' of licensing under loads of licenses. Plus a new license may come along and KF wants to be able to license under that too - if it has a recursive disclaimer clause.

The best thing to do is just have a clear vision of where you want Kendra to go and then have a simple license that meets those needs. There will be a limited number of contributers and you can maintain a list of them. You start off with KF license 1.0, and if the needs of the license changes then you ask the contributers to resubit their work under KF license 2.0.

I hope we can get this to work. As you both said, so do I - I too am no lawyer.

There are a number of well-written and tested licences, you can always take one and extend it. Here are some:
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/
So you just say that the Kendra license is XXX extended with the following provisos/paragraphs.

Phillip.