MESSAGE
| DATE | 2013-06-30 |
| FROM | From: "Paul Robert Marino"
|
| SUBJECT | Re: [NYLXS - HANGOUT] MySQL mistake is a wake-up call on open source ownership
|
From owner-hangout-outgoing-at-mrbrklyn.com Sun Jun 30 11:05:14 2013
Return-Path:
X-Original-To: archive-at-mrbrklyn.com
Delivered-To: archive-at-mrbrklyn.com
Received: by mrbrklyn.com (Postfix)
id E8F32161135; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 11:05:12 -0400 (EDT)
Delivered-To: hangout-outgoing-at-mrbrklyn.com
Received: by mrbrklyn.com (Postfix, from userid 28)
id D473016113E; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 11:05:12 -0400 (EDT)
Delivered-To: hangout-at-mrbrklyn.com
Received: from mail-yh0-f46.google.com (mail-yh0-f46.google.com [209.85.213.46])
by mrbrklyn.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7989161136
for ; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 11:05:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by mail-yh0-f46.google.com with SMTP id i57so2094276yha.19
for ; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 08:05:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=message-id:date:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:x-mailer
:mime-version:content-type;
bh=bPEkrrZhTxRHmcnzWlFZkG9FyEZo47C4UTBUXLNY6no=;
b=EVXm9CoEAiYNrAWzcxlL9FXAVflMjtqkCT+Szsplq11W6qnVVxSF7e9ddpGbbU2lrP
at7LUMQmAi/Z3IrFOT0a2mReXDNXk/ReMLBrw/YPkjwtHoxED2kXZr8H1srejtgacrMw
xbK33GvRUJgGi1bP/7VJXWJHASpv5470mcD1MSvTl5XVptX+8e0+aVJgdEMy5iK0WiSk
bvWySj+9YRe7sbGRaX+eqmGQJwtGSJHtAtS0uw+4+mki480fkvafGv4XEZRIlpzbXQQS
FX4mYSBkg2vlV+QoI67etTZm0cDHORtSunAUFVN4r/iDLp9s4Y15wZNpNMnECvFtG+2Y
Fwtg==
X-Received: by 10.236.66.39 with SMTP id g27mr1635925yhd.79.1372604711516;
Sun, 30 Jun 2013 08:05:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from www.palm.com (mbe4036d0.tmodns.net. [208.54.64.190])
by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id s65sm26428802yhs.14.2013.06.30.08.05.08
for
(version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
Sun, 30 Jun 2013 08:05:10 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <51d04926.6516ec0a.2229.6d77-at-mx.google.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2013 11:05:08 -0400
From: "Paul Robert Marino"
To:
Cc: "Hangout"
Subject: Re: [NYLXS - HANGOUT] MySQL mistake is a wake-up call on open source ownership
In-Reply-To: <20130630100343.GB2505-at-panix.com>
X-Mailer: Palm webOS
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Alternative_=_Boundary_=_1372604707"
Sender: owner-hangout-at-mrbrklyn.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: hangout-at-mrbrklyn.com
--Alternative_=_Boundary_=_1372604707
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I have seen instances where a contributer agreement wasn't really a bad thi=
ng. There is a contributer agreement that the open group has been adding to=
the Apache 2 license with only states that you certify that your contribut=
ions are owned by you and not part of a companies proprietary product and i=
f so you have gotten the legal owner of the proprietary software to sign th=
e agreement too. The point of it is to prevent situations like what SCO was=
threatening to do, where they were planning to sue the users for back lice=
nse fees.
I have no problem with this kind of addendum as its not partic=
ularly harmful; however I will admit it might make you think twice about co=
ntributing because how do you really know if you are violating some ones fr=
ivolous secret software patent.
lude, Verdana, san-serif;">
=3D"font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;color: #999999;">-- Sen=
t from my HP Pre3
elude, Verdana, san-serif; ">
On Jun =
30, 2013 6:03 AM, Ruben Safir <mrbrklyn-at-panix.com> wrote:
pan>On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 09:50:43AM -0400, einker wrote:=0D
> MySQ=
L mistake is a wake-up call on open source ownership=0D
> By Simon Ph=
ipps=0D
> Created 2013-06-21 03:00AM=0D
> http://www.infoworld.=
com/d/open-source-software/mysql-mistake-wake-call-open-source-ownership-22=
1164=0D
=0D
=0D
Richard warned Monty about this when it first star=
ted. In fact they had=0D
a face to face about it at the NYLXS Dinner.=
=0D
=0D
> =0D
> MySQL mistake is a wake-up call on open sour=
ce ownership=0D
> =0D
> There was a moment of panic in the open=
source community this week when a=0D
> developer on the MariaDB fork=
of MySQL discovered that Oracle had quietly=0D
> changed the license=
on all the man pages [1] for MySQL from GPL to a=0D
> restrictive pr=
oprietary license two months earlier. Prompted by the bug=0D
> report=
, Oracle's staff quickly discovered that an error had been made in=0D
&g=
t; the build system and promised to immediately undo the change and restore=
=0D
> the GPL to all of MySQL. Problem solved [2]!=0D
> =0D
=
> All the same, the incident was a wake-up call to many. Although there'=
s no=0D
> reason why they should and have promised not to do so, Orac=
le could change=0D
> the license for MySQL, or indeed any of the open=
source projects it owns,=0D
> at any time without notice. Oracle is =
able to do this since, unique among=0D
> the rest of the open source =
community around each project, they are not=0D
> themselves bound by =
the open source license.=0D
> =0D
> [ Simon Phipps tells it lik=
e it is: Why software patents are evil [3]. |=0D
> Stay ahead of the =
key tech business news with InfoWorld's Today's=0D
> Headlines: First=
Look newsletter [4]. | Track the latest trends in open=0D
> source w=
ith InfoWorld's Technology: Open Source newsletter [5]. ]=0D
> =0D>> This unique power exists in turn because Oracle owns the entire copyr=
ight=0D
> to MySQL, even to parts of it the company has not written. =
Why is that?=0D
> It's because all contributors to the code have to s=
ign a "contributor=0D
> agreement" assigning ownership of the copyrig=
ht to Oracle, which is not=0D
> alone in this. Sun before them used c=
ontributor agreements to get full=0D
> source ownership, and many oth=
er projects do the same.=0D
> =0D
> What are contributor agreem=
ents, and why do they exist? The need for them=0D
> often arises from=
the interaction with open source and certain approaches=0D
> to busi=
ness. They meet a need, but they can come at a significant cost to=0D
&g=
t; the health of the project. If you're starting a new project, it's worth=
=0D
> understanding the bigger picture with a practical guide [6] to =
the=0D
> assumption that "everyone uses contributor agreements" becau=
se not everyone=0D
> does. I'm by no means the first to tread this gr=
ound; this old but=0D
> comprehensive article by LibreOffice develope=
r Michael Meeks [7] ends with=0D
> a useful list of other articles.=
=0D
> =0D
> Dual licensing=0D
> One of the dimensions of =
the business of open source has been the=0D
> dual-licensing [8] busi=
ness model. The name is a little confusing since=0D
> there is (usual=
ly) only one open source license used; the second=0D
> arrangement is=
usually a proprietary license or contract exempting the=0D
> custome=
r from some of the terms of the open source license. This can be=0D
>=
better described as selling exceptions to the open source license, and it=
=0D
> is commonly done in conjunction with the GNU GPL, which has cla=
uses some=0D
> businesses regard as hard to accept.=0D
> =0D>> Under this model, open source software is genuinely present, guarante=
eing=0D
> the freedoms of its users, but the business owning the copy=
right makes=0D
> money by selling benefits, such as the right to make=
derivatives under a=0D
> different license, commercial terms that of=
fer additional guarantees and=0D
> (most famously) anything-but-the-G=
PL as the license under which the=0D
> software is used. This last op=
tion means that dual licensing has often been=0D
> associated with sh=
ady sales tactics along the lines of "it would be a shame=0D
> if you=
r business got infected with that evil GPL viral license ..."=0D
> =
=0D
> Copyright aggregation=0D
> In order to use this model, th=
e business owning the copyright has to own=0D
> the entire copyright =
to the software they are distributing. As a=0D
> consequence, when an=
y community member wants to add a modification or=0D
> enhancement to=
the source code for the software, the owner demands the=0D
> contrib=
utor must also hand over their rights to the addition. To achieve=0D
>=
; this, the copyright owner requires the contributor to sign a legal docume=
nt=0D
> for any involvement in the community that involves co-develop=
ment.=0D
> =0D
> Usually called a "contributor agreement" (to t=
he detriment of older=0D
> arrangements that use that term for commun=
ity participation agreements that=0D
> don't actually aggregate copyr=
ight), the document gives rights amounting to=0D
> ownership of the c=
opyright in the new work to the copyright aggregator. It=0D
> may als=
o include other clauses, such as a statement of originality ("this=0D
&g=
t; is my work and I didn't plagiarize it"), a grant of patent rights, and e=
ven=0D
> an indemnity ("if you get sued you can blame me"). In most c=
ases the author=0D
> retains rights to any individual work in some fo=
rm or receives a license=0D
> back, but it's only the aggregator who =
owns the copyright to the whole=0D
> system.=0D
> =0D
> S=
o what's the problem?=0D
> Open source can be defined as the co-devel=
opment of software by a community=0D
> of people who choose to align =
a fragment of their self-interest in order to=0D
> do so. The commons=
in which they work contains software free from usage=0D
> restrictio=
ns, with guaranteed freedoms to use, study, modify, and=0D
> distribu=
te it -- in other words, "free software." The community members=0D
> =
each work at their own expense in order to achieve a shared outcome that=0D=
> benefits all, including themselves. When they create an enhancemen=
t, fix a=0D
> defect, or participate in a design, they are not "worki=
ng for free" or=0D
> "donating their work" so much as they are "parti=
cipating in co-development."=0D
> =0D
> That favored word "cont=
ributor" gives a clue to the problem copyright=0D
> aggregation agree=
ments cause. An open source community is an open,=0D
> meritocratic o=
ligarchy ruled by an elite who gain leadership based on the=0D
> meri=
ts of their participation and skills, open equally to anyone who does=0D>> the same in the future. The presence of a "contributor agreement" tha=
t=0D
> involves copyright aggregation may be a warning sign that the =
community=0D
> using it has one member who is more equal than all the=
others.=0D
> =0D
> Communities whose members are termed "contr=
ibutors" rather than "members"=0D
> or "participants" may well be une=
qual places where your interests are=0D
> subsidiary to those of the =
copyright owner. They are often dominated by=0D
> users and fans of t=
he software rather than by co-developers, since the=0D
> inequality m=
akes it hard or even impossible for genuine co-developers to=0D
> ali=
gn any fragment of their interests on equal terms. Indeed, this=0D
> =
inequality is seen by some dual-license proponents as one of the=0D
>=
attractions of the model as they seek a community of enthusiasts and=0D>> (hopefully) customers that they can exploit without competition.=0Dr>> =0D
> Exceptions=0D
> There can be justifications for ha=
ving copyright aggregation by and for a=0D
> community. When the bene=
ficiary of the aggregated copyright is the=0D
> community itself (in =
the case of a community hosted by a nonprofit=0D
> foundation), there=
are benefits available that may outweigh the=0D
> disadvantages. The=
se include giving the foundation the legal right to=0D
> enforce the =
copyright in certain jurisdictions, and the freedom to update=0D
> th=
e open source license later. They may also include the granting of=0D
&g=
t; additional rights such as patent licenses in the case where the open sou=
rce=0D
> license does not adequately deal with patents, or to help in=
countries=0D
> where copyright law is sufficiently different from U.=
S. law that the=0D
> U.S.-centric concepts behind open source fail.=
=0D
> =0D
> Even with these benefits available, many communitie=
s choose not to=0D
> aggregate their copyrights -- notably the Linux =
kernel, GNOME, and Mozilla=0D
> communities. The policy [9] and guide=
lines [10] on copyright assignment by=0D
> the GNOME Foundation is es=
pecially worth reading. Having diverse copyright=0D
> ownership leads=
to a deeper mutual trust and an assurance that the playing=0D
> fiel=
d remains level. Insisting on copyright aggregation is one of the more=0Dr>> certain ways a company can ensure that the open source community it =
is=0D
> seeding will remain small and lack co-developers. With the ri=
se of "value=0D
> add" business models such as Apache-style open core=
or service=0D
> subscriptions, it is less necessary for the business=
es involved to=0D
> aggregate copyright.=0D
> =0D
> Some =
foundations that avoid aggregation (such as Mozilla) do have a=0D
> d=
ocument termed a contributor agreement but given the purpose it serves it=
=0D
> might be better termed a "participant agreement." This is becau=
se it mainly=0D
> addresses community norms and specifically avoids c=
opyright aggregation.=0D
> Indeed, some suspect that vaguely using th=
e term "contributor agreement" to=0D
> describe agreements that also =
aggregate copyright is a tactic designed to=0D
> screen the toxicity =
of copyright assignments from general view.=0D
> =0D
> How to f=
lourish=0D
> It may well be advisable to have a participant agreement=
for your=0D
> community, to ensure that everyone has the same unders=
tanding of and=0D
> commitment to the project if they are sharing its=
evolution. But if you=0D
> want your community to flourish, then you=
should eschew aggregated=0D
> copyrights or vest them in a nonprofit=
entity representative of and open to=0D
> the community. In fact, av=
oid any institutional inequality and focused=0D
> control. Communitie=
s should be open by rule.=0D
> =0D
> In my experience, attempti=
ng to retain control of a project you're starting=0D
> or hosting lea=
ds to mistrust, contention, and a rules-based focus that=0D
> diminis=
hes your reputation. Relaxing control will lead to the community=0D
>=
innovating and growing in ways you've not anticipated, as well as enhancin=
g=0D
> your reputation. As I've frequently said (although less freque=
ntly been=0D
> heeded): Trade control for influence, because in a mes=
hed society control=0D
> gets marginalized whereas influence delivers=
success.=0D
> =0D
> This article, "MySQL mistake is a wake-up =
call on open source ownership=0D
> [11]," was originally published at=
InfoWorld.com [12]. Read more of the=0D
> Open Sources blog [13] and=
follow the latest developments in open source=0D
> [14] at InfoWorld=
=2Ecom. For the latest business technology news, follow=0D
> InfoWorl=
d.com on Twitter [15].=0D
> =0D
> -- =0D
> Regards,=0D>> =0D
> Evan M. Inker=0D
--Alternative_=_Boundary_=_1372604707--
--Alternative_=_Boundary_=_1372604707
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I have seen instances where a contributer agreement wasn't really a bad thi=
ng. There is a contributer agreement that the open group has been adding to=
the Apache 2 license with only states that you certify that your contribut=
ions are owned by you and not part of a companies proprietary product and i=
f so you have gotten the legal owner of the proprietary software to sign th=
e agreement too. The point of it is to prevent situations like what SCO was=
threatening to do, where they were planning to sue the users for back lice=
nse fees.
I have no problem with this kind of addendum as its not partic=
ularly harmful; however I will admit it might make you think twice about co=
ntributing because how do you really know if you are violating some ones fr=
ivolous secret software patent.
lude, Verdana, san-serif;">
=3D"font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;color: #999999;">-- Sen=
t from my HP Pre3
elude, Verdana, san-serif; ">
On Jun =
30, 2013 6:03 AM, Ruben Safir <mrbrklyn-at-panix.com> wrote:
pan>On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 09:50:43AM -0400, einker wrote:=0D
> MySQ=
L mistake is a wake-up call on open source ownership=0D
> By Simon Ph=
ipps=0D
> Created 2013-06-21 03:00AM=0D
> http://www.infoworld.=
com/d/open-source-software/mysql-mistake-wake-call-open-source-ownership-22=
1164=0D
=0D
=0D
Richard warned Monty about this when it first star=
ted. In fact they had=0D
a face to face about it at the NYLXS Dinner.=
=0D
=0D
> =0D
> MySQL mistake is a wake-up call on open sour=
ce ownership=0D
> =0D
> There was a moment of panic in the open=
source community this week when a=0D
> developer on the MariaDB fork=
of MySQL discovered that Oracle had quietly=0D
> changed the license=
on all the man pages [1] for MySQL from GPL to a=0D
> restrictive pr=
oprietary license two months earlier. Prompted by the bug=0D
> report=
, Oracle's staff quickly discovered that an error had been made in=0D
&g=
t; the build system and promised to immediately undo the change and restore=
=0D
> the GPL to all of MySQL. Problem solved [2]!=0D
> =0D
=
> All the same, the incident was a wake-up call to many. Although there'=
s no=0D
> reason why they should and have promised not to do so, Orac=
le could change=0D
> the license for MySQL, or indeed any of the open=
source projects it owns,=0D
> at any time without notice. Oracle is =
able to do this since, unique among=0D
> the rest of the open source =
community around each project, they are not=0D
> themselves bound by =
the open source license.=0D
> =0D
> [ Simon Phipps tells it lik=
e it is: Why software patents are evil [3]. |=0D
> Stay ahead of the =
key tech business news with InfoWorld's Today's=0D
> Headlines: First=
Look newsletter [4]. | Track the latest trends in open=0D
> source w=
ith InfoWorld's Technology: Open Source newsletter [5]. ]=0D
> =0D>> This unique power exists in turn because Oracle owns the entire copyr=
ight=0D
> to MySQL, even to parts of it the company has not written. =
Why is that?=0D
> It's because all contributors to the code have to s=
ign a "contributor=0D
> agreement" assigning ownership of the copyrig=
ht to Oracle, which is not=0D
> alone in this. Sun before them used c=
ontributor agreements to get full=0D
> source ownership, and many oth=
er projects do the same.=0D
> =0D
> What are contributor agreem=
ents, and why do they exist? The need for them=0D
> often arises from=
the interaction with open source and certain approaches=0D
> to busi=
ness. They meet a need, but they can come at a significant cost to=0D
&g=
t; the health of the project. If you're starting a new project, it's worth=
=0D
> understanding the bigger picture with a practical guide [6] to =
the=0D
> assumption that "everyone uses contributor agreements" becau=
se not everyone=0D
> does. I'm by no means the first to tread this gr=
ound; this old but=0D
> comprehensive article by LibreOffice develope=
r Michael Meeks [7] ends with=0D
> a useful list of other articles.=
=0D
> =0D
> Dual licensing=0D
> One of the dimensions of =
the business of open source has been the=0D
> dual-licensing [8] busi=
ness model. The name is a little confusing since=0D
> there is (usual=
ly) only one open source license used; the second=0D
> arrangement is=
usually a proprietary license or contract exempting the=0D
> custome=
r from some of the terms of the open source license. This can be=0D
>=
better described as selling exceptions to the open source license, and it=
=0D
> is commonly done in conjunction with the GNU GPL, which has cla=
uses some=0D
> businesses regard as hard to accept.=0D
> =0D>> Under this model, open source software is genuinely present, guarante=
eing=0D
> the freedoms of its users, but the business owning the copy=
right makes=0D
> money by selling benefits, such as the right to make=
derivatives under a=0D
> different license, commercial terms that of=
fer additional guarantees and=0D
> (most famously) anything-but-the-G=
PL as the license under which the=0D
> software is used. This last op=
tion means that dual licensing has often been=0D
> associated with sh=
ady sales tactics along the lines of "it would be a shame=0D
> if you=
r business got infected with that evil GPL viral license ..."=0D
> =
=0D
> Copyright aggregation=0D
> In order to use this model, th=
e business owning the copyright has to own=0D
> the entire copyright =
to the software they are distributing. As a=0D
> consequence, when an=
y community member wants to add a modification or=0D
> enhancement to=
the source code for the software, the owner demands the=0D
> contrib=
utor must also hand over their rights to the addition. To achieve=0D
>=
; this, the copyright owner requires the contributor to sign a legal docume=
nt=0D
> for any involvement in the community that involves co-develop=
ment.=0D
> =0D
> Usually called a "contributor agreement" (to t=
he detriment of older=0D
> arrangements that use that term for commun=
ity participation agreements that=0D
> don't actually aggregate copyr=
ight), the document gives rights amounting to=0D
> ownership of the c=
opyright in the new work to the copyright aggregator. It=0D
> may als=
o include other clauses, such as a statement of originality ("this=0D
&g=
t; is my work and I didn't plagiarize it"), a grant of patent rights, and e=
ven=0D
> an indemnity ("if you get sued you can blame me"). In most c=
ases the author=0D
> retains rights to any individual work in some fo=
rm or receives a license=0D
> back, but it's only the aggregator who =
owns the copyright to the whole=0D
> system.=0D
> =0D
> S=
o what's the problem?=0D
> Open source can be defined as the co-devel=
opment of software by a community=0D
> of people who choose to align =
a fragment of their self-interest in order to=0D
> do so. The commons=
in which they work contains software free from usage=0D
> restrictio=
ns, with guaranteed freedoms to use, study, modify, and=0D
> distribu=
te it -- in other words, "free software." The community members=0D
> =
each work at their own expense in order to achieve a shared outcome that=0D=
> benefits all, including themselves. When they create an enhancemen=
t, fix a=0D
> defect, or participate in a design, they are not "worki=
ng for free" or=0D
> "donating their work" so much as they are "parti=
cipating in co-development."=0D
> =0D
> That favored word "cont=
ributor" gives a clue to the problem copyright=0D
> aggregation agree=
ments cause. An open source community is an open,=0D
> meritocratic o=
ligarchy ruled by an elite who gain leadership based on the=0D
> meri=
ts of their participation and skills, open equally to anyone who does=0D>> the same in the future. The presence of a "contributor agreement" tha=
t=0D
> involves copyright aggregation may be a warning sign that the =
community=0D
> using it has one member who is more equal than all the=
others.=0D
> =0D
> Communities whose members are termed "contr=
ibutors" rather than "members"=0D
> or "participants" may well be une=
qual places where your interests are=0D
> subsidiary to those of the =
copyright owner. They are often dominated by=0D
> users and fans of t=
he software rather than by co-developers, since the=0D
> inequality m=
akes it hard or even impossible for genuine co-developers to=0D
> ali=
gn any fragment of their interests on equal terms. Indeed, this=0D
> =
inequality is seen by some dual-license proponents as one of the=0D
>=
attractions of the model as they seek a community of enthusiasts and=0D>> (hopefully) customers that they can exploit without competition.=0Dr>> =0D
> Exceptions=0D
> There can be justifications for ha=
ving copyright aggregation by and for a=0D
> community. When the bene=
ficiary of the aggregated copyright is the=0D
> community itself (in =
the case of a community hosted by a nonprofit=0D
> foundation), there=
are benefits available that may outweigh the=0D
> disadvantages. The=
se include giving the foundation the legal right to=0D
> enforce the =
copyright in certain jurisdictions, and the freedom to update=0D
> th=
e open source license later. They may also include the granting of=0D
&g=
t; additional rights such as patent licenses in the case where the open sou=
rce=0D
> license does not adequately deal with patents, or to help in=
countries=0D
> where copyright law is sufficiently different from U.=
S. law that the=0D
> U.S.-centric concepts behind open source fail.=
=0D
> =0D
> Even with these benefits available, many communitie=
s choose not to=0D
> aggregate their copyrights -- notably the Linux =
kernel, GNOME, and Mozilla=0D
> communities. The policy [9] and guide=
lines [10] on copyright assignment by=0D
> the GNOME Foundation is es=
pecially worth reading. Having diverse copyright=0D
> ownership leads=
to a deeper mutual trust and an assurance that the playing=0D
> fiel=
d remains level. Insisting on copyright aggregation is one of the more=0Dr>> certain ways a company can ensure that the open source community it =
is=0D
> seeding will remain small and lack co-developers. With the ri=
se of "value=0D
> add" business models such as Apache-style open core=
or service=0D
> subscriptions, it is less necessary for the business=
es involved to=0D
> aggregate copyright.=0D
> =0D
> Some =
foundations that avoid aggregation (such as Mozilla) do have a=0D
> d=
ocument termed a contributor agreement but given the purpose it serves it=
=0D
> might be better termed a "participant agreement." This is becau=
se it mainly=0D
> addresses community norms and specifically avoids c=
opyright aggregation.=0D
> Indeed, some suspect that vaguely using th=
e term "contributor agreement" to=0D
> describe agreements that also =
aggregate copyright is a tactic designed to=0D
> screen the toxicity =
of copyright assignments from general view.=0D
> =0D
> How to f=
lourish=0D
> It may well be advisable to have a participant agreement=
for your=0D
> community, to ensure that everyone has the same unders=
tanding of and=0D
> commitment to the project if they are sharing its=
evolution. But if you=0D
> want your community to flourish, then you=
should eschew aggregated=0D
> copyrights or vest them in a nonprofit=
entity representative of and open to=0D
> the community. In fact, av=
oid any institutional inequality and focused=0D
> control. Communitie=
s should be open by rule.=0D
> =0D
> In my experience, attempti=
ng to retain control of a project you're starting=0D
> or hosting lea=
ds to mistrust, contention, and a rules-based focus that=0D
> diminis=
hes your reputation. Relaxing control will lead to the community=0D
>=
innovating and growing in ways you've not anticipated, as well as enhancin=
g=0D
> your reputation. As I've frequently said (although less freque=
ntly been=0D
> heeded): Trade control for influence, because in a mes=
hed society control=0D
> gets marginalized whereas influence delivers=
success.=0D
> =0D
> This article, "MySQL mistake is a wake-up =
call on open source ownership=0D
> [11]," was originally published at=
InfoWorld.com [12]. Read more of the=0D
> Open Sources blog [13] and=
follow the latest developments in open source=0D
> [14] at InfoWorld=
=2Ecom. For the latest business technology news, follow=0D
> InfoWorl=
d.com on Twitter [15].=0D
> =0D
> -- =0D
> Regards,=0D>> =0D
> Evan M. Inker=0D
--Alternative_=_Boundary_=_1372604707--
|
|
