Slashdot Mirror
Evolution Bounty Stirs GPL Concerns
Moochman writes "The recent Desktop Integration Bounty (funded by Novell) will surely please people who want Evolution to be part of GNOME. But the Ximian Evolution copyright assignment has stirred up concerns in the community about whether contributors will be able to maintain their Free Software mores. Essentially, contributors to Evolution must give Novell copyright over any code they submit; then Novell is allowed to include this code in a proprietary product. Is this a smart business move, or a violation of the GPL?" Since all contributions are only at the request of the contributing coder, and considering that the copyright assignment form says that "Ximian agrees to grant back to Developer, and does hereby grant, nonexclusive, royaltyfree and noncancelable rights to use the Works," and specifies that Novell/Ximian release the code under a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines (such as the GPL), it seems to protect the contributors rather well.
How is this any different? Because they are also going to sell a proprietary version? The developers will sign the rights over to Ximian, so how is this any different from dual-licensing like MySQLs? I mean, Ximian will own the code..
Developers are getting paid for their work. Essentially they are contract workers for Novell.
-----
One is born into aristocracy, but mediocrity can only be achieved through hard work.
This gives me an overwhelming feeling of "I don't give a crap"
I think myself, like the majority of people that use software could give a flying fsck about the license some software is using.
Gnu / BSD / X11 / Sell Grandmother into slavery - I don't care.
Evolution is a perfectly acceptable replacement for Outlook, so long as it continues being like that i'll use it. If some better software comes along that runs on my PC i'll switch.
The Free Software Foundation also asks programmers to sign over the copyright of any code they contribute. Ditto with the OpenOffice people. This is a perfectly normal request; having code licensed under both the GPL and some other license is quite common (OpenOffice, etc.).
Nothing to see here, move along.
As far as I can see it, this really is an internal debate. The complaints have been made, and resolutions are starting to take place, and THEN it ends up on Slashdot? Where's the BS filter gone? This is completely irrelevant for someone outside of the community to solve, and it's the community that will eventually resolve this. In addition, there are multiple discussions that have been mistaken for one here: The bounties are not directly involved with the copyright assignment debate at all.
Just leave it already. Seems that this passes pretty unseen amongst outsiders anyway.
I don't pretend to know the GPL but I think I know the spirit of it pretty well.
I think that so long as the code remains free, I have no problem with an organization being enabled to use the code in their own commercial product. I think it would be ridiculous for them not to be able to gain benefit from the activity they sponsor.
I guess what they are trying to do is say "okay, anything you give is ours first and then we give it back... but we want to be able to use it in proprietary code but you still get to keep the code too..."
Hopefully it will integrate with KDE a little better. Little things like sound would be nice - or being able to configure it without having to fire up Gnome Control Centre.
It's probably never going to happen, because Evolution is Gnome through and through, but it would be nice to be able to run it without all those Gnome libraries eating up memory. The performance hit since upgrading to SuSE 9.1 has been really noticeable.
"The dew has clearly fallen with a particularly sickening thud this morning"
So does my project.
;-)
As I mentioned on the linked page: "Also, the FSF makes all contributors attribute copyrights to the FSF. They do this for legal reasons. Mozilla did not, and when they decided to re-license, they had to contact every contributor. Because of this, we too require that any contributors attribute the copyrights to the jasabe project. Of course, you are still free to fork the project and keep your changes under your copyright, but we cannot accept your changes into the main jasabe tree."
Don't believe me? More info can be found on the FSF page as well as on their FAQ.
Not that it matters much for our project. It's only important if you have contributors.
We were able to recently bring Jeremy Cole of MySQL in to talk with our group, and he explained that MySQL has a very similar dual-licensing methodology. This allows MySQL to sell their software commercially for those who want to include it in their products (I understand MySQL is used in telecom lots), and the companies that purchase it don't have to distribute the source with their products (which would be a hardship for them and possibly prevent them from using MySQL as a result). Additionally, MySQL AB is able to release the open version of MySQL for those who want to modify the source and tinker to their hearts contents. All contributors to the MySQL codebase have to sign-off on their code and the dual licensing, and this seems to be working well around the board, with a win-win for everyone. This way of doing things seems to support the company and a great database!
Most of these, such as apache or GNU, require the code signover for reasons of ease of legal bookkeeping, or as a way of absolutely ensuring they have the right to use the code.. GNU requires this because part of their function is to police GPL violations, but they can't effectively take legal action concerning code they don't own. People rarely have trouble with signing over their code copyright in such instances because the projects in question have no form of greed or self-interest in asking for the copyright.
This Evolution thing meanwhile you're being required to hand over the copyright so that Novell can turn around and sell it in a proprietary product. This is slightly different. Rather than being asked to hand over the copyright for the good of the community and users, you're being asked to hand over the copyright for the good of Novell.
This is actually exactly like MySQL and a lot of people do hesitate before contributing code to MySQL for exactly this same reason.
Novell is giving you money and you have to give them the copyright.
Whoever want pure GPL can fork Evolution....
It's a damn good thing to have these bounty hunts. It really involves a lot of people but at the same time it repays the people who have worked so hard to get some of the things done.
As far as the licences goes, does it matter? I mean if i wrote something got $1000 for it and decided it was worth selling my code, I'd have no problem with it. It seems that there are people out there who would like you to have a choice on what to do with the code as long as you let everyone see and use your code as they please. Not a lot of choice there, right? In my opinion it all comes down to the developer, if he wants to do something let him. As far as I'm concerned those devs got paid for by Novell for whatever they did, so at least Novell should be able to use some of that code elswhere also.
Let's say Novell comes out with Evolution and Evolution PRO. Regular version is Open Source, the Pro version is $100. If I as a dev submited some code that found it's way in both versions I'd have no problem with it since there is a free version that uses my code anyways. If i submited a code that found it's way only in Pro then I'd have a problem with it. Basically what I'm getting at is that the $100 Novell charges you for pro is probably not due to my code, but some other code that Novell developed not under GPL but under some propiatery license or something.
No, since the BSD license would give everybody the right to do whatever they want with the code, I doubt that is what Novell wants that.
As it stands now, only Novell can do what they want with the code, as they get the copyright, and everybody outside of Novell 'just' gets the GPLed version and can't thus reuse the code in a proprietary product as Novell can.
This is not a legal issue but a moral one. The GPL is intended to create an ecosystem of free software and to discourage the creation of proprietary code, because proprietary code makes it illegal for me to help my neighbor.
What Novell is asking people to do is to sign over the copyright to their code so that they can produce both proprietary and GPL software based on that code.
Well, what happens when all the nice bells and whistles are only added to the proprietary version of evolution? This version becomes much more appealing. As a result, there is a demand for it and users begin to leave the GPL version in drones.
In the end, the bulk of the app's code is only released to lower maintenance costs, while the nice bells are proprietary and you can no longer share the software freely. In philosophical terms, Novell's decision is purely utalitarian, rather than based on the conviction that Free Sofware is the morally correct choice.
In essence, Novell's request for copyright respects the letter but violates the spirit of the GPL.
By signing your copyright over to Novell, you are saying that you do not care all that much about creating communities that share free software, because you are implicitly allowing your code to be contributed to a non-free application. The only way I would sign my code over is if Novell agrees to distribute ALL OF evolution under the GPL at PERPETUITY.
Pragmatism as an ideology is not particularly pragmatic in the long term. Keep it in mind when you dismiss Free Software
You've exposed an underlying fallacy of open source and the GPL: No direct link exists between source availability and innovation.
In this particular case, the open source community is using a widely loathed proprietary program -- Outlook -- as both model and yardstick for one of it's premier offerings, Evolution. Ditto OpenOffice.
If the GPL does foster the creation of new and innovative applications, why has the community not already brought forth an email client and an office client that are so convincingly innovative, useful and attractive that people will happily abandon the Outlook/MSOffice paradigms in order to adopt them?
Granted, source availability does spread innovative ideas once they occur in the mind of a given developer. But, it seems clear that a developer working in a closed, proprietary environment can be just as innovative as one working in an free and open environment. Financial reward can, in fact, be a wonderful spur to creativity.
It could be argued, as well, that the availability of code works against innovation because developers often use existing code as a model rather than strike out into new territory.
The GPL and open source represent many good things, but they are no better or no worse at fostering creativity than the proprietary model.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
This is not a violation of the GPL.
But this is a reason to not make Evolution an integral part of Gnome.
There is nothing wrong with Novell doing this, but please don't compare it to situations where developers are asked to assign their code to a foundation. The wxWidgets, Mozilla, Gnome, Apache, Python, etc. foundations have mandates to help their users and contributors. Novell is a corporation, and it is ultimately only responsible to its shareholders.
Novell with Evolution and Sun with OpenOffice - these are like TrollTech with Qt. Better than closed source, but not as good as software which is guided by the interests of its users and developers.
As soon as your code is accepted and put into CVS, you can check it back out, under the GPL. The GPL is non-revokeable. Now having GPL rights to the code is not exactly the same as having ownership of it. Legally it is very different. Pragmaticly, as soon as it is in the public CVS your goal of submitting code the public good has happened. If you are very paranoid, only give them small chunks at a time, making sure that you can checkout your work before you give them more.
What you have lost is the right to take that part of Evolution and close it, sell it as closed code. Now, since you dont own the rights to the other 99% of Evolution, not much lost. Furthermore, Evolution is a fairly large and complex beast so unless you are working on it full time, I think it is unlikely that you could possibly contribute anything that would be usefull outside of Evolution. That is, your doing bugfixes, implementing minor features.
But what if your work is generic stuff that could be used outside Evolution? Do this: write it up as a library. Release the library under whatever license you want - retaining the ownership, and the right to sell it as closed code - and then only give Novell patches to Evolution such that it takes advantage of your library.
OpenOffice.org addressed this via a joint copyright assignment. In fact, IIRC, they started with a copyright assignment akin to Novell/Ximian's, but then eventually decided to do a joint copyright assignment in the interest of spurring more contributions.
IANAL, NDIPOOTV (Nor Do I Play One On TV), but a joint copyright assignment means that the original author retains all their original rights, and can license their code however they wish, but that the other signatory (in the case of Oo.org, Sun) also can license it how they choose.
The Busy Coder's Guide to Android Development
I really don't understand what people are unhappy about. Novell is offering to pay people to add certain features to Evolution and Gnome. In return for that payment, Novell wants to own the copyright of the resulting code (so they can also use it in their proprietary products), but they promise to also make sure the code is released under a free license (not unreasonable since they are making the offer to a community of free software developers). If you don't like those terms, feel free to not send your code to Novell and not collect any bounty. If other people do like those terms, that is their business.
Gee, if he's an open source developer, how the hell is he supposed to make a living if not by providing support, consulting or something like that?
But despite the fact that I don't see the similarity, it didn't matter because as Brian Behlendorf said,
And now that three years have passed since Jan. 2001, that non-profit which I can assign joint assignment of copyright to... still does not exist. AFTER *3* (THREE) **YEARS**?!?! Hello! Brian Behlendorf? Is Sun in any rush to create this non-profit? Do you even have an ETA yet?
So... why is it we are so conserned with Novell now? I'm sure they will also assign copyright control over to a non-profit... about as quickly as Sun does for OpenOffice. Until then, we should all sign our hard work over to corps. via joint assignment agreements. After all, Sun/Novell are "similar" to the FSF. It isn't like corp. type people like Brian Behlendorf would ever lie. If they say that a non-profit will be formed soon to address any conserns then I'm sure that is what will happen.
Wait a second... it has been THREE YEARS?! I have been lied too! Anyone think it is time to tackle the Sun issue first? Maybe we should address where Sun is going with their "supposed" non-profit before attacking Novell for following the same model. At least from my expierence with Novell, they will be more responsive than taking three years. But from my expierence, I can't say the same for Sun.
It's even worse: if you use that code in another program, you will be limited in how you can license that program. You're not the copyright owner of part of that program, so you cannot just assign a license to it without permission from the copyright owner. The GPL will work, sure, but if you want to use that code with some form of other license, you will be running into trouble.
In other words: Novell will be the only one able to use _your_ code in a program where they get to decide the license. You can use that code in a program of your own, but you can't provide your users with any rights not provided by the licenses used by Novell.
In other words: No way am I going to contribute to such a program!
The question is who you trust, either Novell which has a history of making tightly controlled proprietary software, or the FSF which is potentially more trustworthy, at least in my opinion.
I wouldn't want to contribute my copyright because I wouldn't want the license to be changed without my permission, so I wouldn't contribute to something like this, but then I have little to offer it anyway so in this case it's a moot point.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
... and they don't have to accept your code.
Nobody is restricting anyone's rights, I think. You're under no obligation to give them code, and they're under no obligation to take your code. IF you enter into this agreement, and especially with large sums of cash involved, it's simply two parties entering into an agreement. If you write the best thing in the world for Evolution, and want to hold onto your copyright, nobody will stop you. (Fork the project if you want, etc etc...)
Notice that copyright assignment to Evolution has
been the rule since its beginning, there is nothing
new.
So this is a three to four year old policy.
Miguel.
Come on guys, this is OLD news. Ximian did this years ago, and nothing's changed except the name.
It hasn't been a real problem with any of the few contributions we've had to the codebase; i think maybe one or two guys got upset about it. It's been more of a hinderance to us, limiting what extenal projects we can utilise for some of the chunkier features. Bigger deterrants to potential contributors is the rapid development pace, limited documentation, the size of the codebase, and our anally retarded quality requirements for patches.
Some of the extensions people want to do aren't useful to the general community and would impact on the user experience for everyone else, or they had under-developed GUI interfaces which we couldn't include in the main product, or they were just poor code. In reality we're lucky if we've had 5% of the code from non-company contributors, and that is probably being generous. So much for Free Software. Often it's quicker and easier to write it ourselves than try to get someone's patch up to speed, unfortunately; but thats a non-technical and non-legal issue.
In 2.2 we'll have an extension mechanism that will let anyone write extensions and release them separate to the main codebase. This will entirely negate most of the issues here since the code will no longer have to be accepted into the main codebase to extend Evolution, and hence wont require assignment. We'll have something like the kernel tainting mechanism to enforce valid combinations (and also to let us know if it isn't our bug).
_
\\/ are accustomed' - First Lensman
Novell, on the other hand, was until recently a completely proprietary software company. It would seem more likely that they might be tempted to use contributed Evolution code in proprietary products. If you can't stand that idea, don't contribute to Evolution. But consider: if you found and fixed a bug in XFree86 (or Xorg) would you be willing to send it in along with an assignment? Remember, that code is non-copylefted, so you might become an unpaid employee of some proprietary company that uses the code. And if you do use Evolution, and you were motivated enough to fix an Evolution bug, why wouldn't you want to send it in? Would you want to create a fork, just to deny Novell the ability to use that patch in proprietary software? It would seem that unless you refuse to send patches to fix non-copylefted software either, you're being inconsistent. Even RMS advocates cooperating with non-copylefted free software projects and not trying to create GPL forks.
A hell of a lot of people have written free software that I use every day while on the Red Hat payroll. I'm fine with Red Hat making enough money to keep these folks working and fed. All things being equal, I'd prefer for the FSF to own the copyright over Red Hat, but I'm not particularly worried about the issue.
No form of greed or self-interest? Surely you must be kidding! Selling a proprietary product is not the only form of greed / self-interest.
RMS and the GPL are certainly driven by self-interest---interest in maximizing the volume of software available to them in source form. RMS doesn't care that you have access to his source. He wants access to yours.