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.

>In order for us to include the code in our product, we will need you to
>provide us with the rights to the code.
>
At least they are doing the RIGHT thing here.  Most companies would just 
include the code, hope the coder didnt realize and that if they did 
realize that the coder would avoid lengthy and costly court precedings.

>I don't know about you, but when a company -- even one like VA Linux, whom
>have supported the open-source community so heartily -- decides to make a
>power grab for software IP rights in such a broad context and then
>blatantly ignores the same community that they were gaining help from, they
>become equal to or worse than M$ in my eyes. In all honesty, this is
>something I'd expect from M$, not VA Linux.
>
Yes they have turned to the evil side and are going to go the way of the 
buffalo because of it.  Of which I can say for any prop software 
company.  Them staying in business or folding is of no consequence if 
you dont use prop software. :)

Derek