Evil SourceForge?

[John (EBo) David]

"Derek A. Neighbors" wrote:
> 
> Thomas,
> 
> >>I would much rather have SF do what it can to bring in new customers and stay
> >>afloat than have it fold in because it can't sell what it gives away for
> >>free.
> >>
> >
> >If it was _their_ property, yes, I'd agree. But in this case, they're asking
> >the developers that worked on the previously open-source SF software to hand
> >over all IP rights, as well as the rights to any futher software that they
> >develop that could possibly make for a good addition to SF. Additionally, if
> >you read the article you'll notice that the developer that recieved the
> >request to hand over his IP rights was asked to help refine the document he
> >was supposed to sign. Again, according to the document, his requests were
> >blatantly ignored and a worse document was mailed out to him for signing --
> >this one requiring that he sign all documents placed in his face by VA Linux.
> >
> Im about as big of a free bigot as they come, but mind you the key term
> here is ASKING.  They are not demanding.  If Loic decides to NOT turn
> over his copyright, they will have to recode what he had done, ALL other
> contributors would be in the same position.  I SUSPECT that the MAJORITY
> of the code was written by VA employees and thusly even if such parties
> didnt agree rewritting their works would be minimal at best.  Also note
> that there are GPL copies floating around in which Loic and others can
> continue to improve and Fork if they so desire.
> 
> I point this out only to say why I think its a shame, this is the GAME
> you play by not taking copyright seriously in the first place.  For
> example why get involved with a project that DOESNT disclose such things
> up front.  As a maintainer for GNU Enterprise I can tell you before we
> commit a SINGLE line of code from someone we have copyright assignment
> and disclaimer filled out and on file upfront.  This way there are no games.
> 
> So while I feel Loic's frustration on this one, I will say a little due
> diligence by ALL parties up front could have prevented this.

Well, as a relitively minor contributor to a SF project that was never
part of VA systems, SF product, or any other affiliated body that I know
of I bothered to read the copyright request.  I would have no problem
with them saying "may we use this in a comercial product?"  My response
would be of course.  If I had worked for them and they said "we need
rights to the code you developed for a project while under our
employ..." I would again say of course.  But when they say they want you
to surender all rights to them, the answer is ARE YOU NUTS?

No, if they need to use stuff they assisted in the creation with I would
say to feel free, but to take controll in such a seemingly blantant way
I want to know what they are thinking they are doing?

  EBo --