License question

[Andy Green]

Erwin Rol wrote:

>> Noncommercial especially is a bit of a potential nightmare because 
>> 'commercial' is not properly defined.

> Well I had a "mega" discussion on the Open-Xchange list with the Netline
> people (the "owner" of Open-Xchange) and someone working on Debian
> packages. The result of that discussion seems to be it is the CC
> "Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5” and stays that way. A second
> smaller problem was/is that Netline wants a copyright assignment for new
> code so they can use it in their commercial version. 

Hum obviously no coincidence that they want to offer it commercially 
themselves and insist that the 'free' version is under noncommercial 
terms then, and the assignment is to guarantee they are in a position to 
enforce the situation.  They can do what they like, but such a system 
AND inviting external patches you demand copyright assignments for is 
like being a little bit pregnant.

> At the moment there are only two people "complaining" about the license,
> maybe they are willing to listen if more people politely ask to put the
> CC parts under a license that is acceptable for inclusion in Fedora and
> Debian. 

The discussion seems to exist here:

http://www.open-xchange.org/pipermail/general/2006-May/thread.html

It seems the key question starts here:

http://www.open-xchange.org/pipermail/general/2006-May/048756.html

-Andy

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 4492 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20060505/a362d870/attachment.bin>