Subject: copyrights

From: /users/domivogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 19:56:05 +0100

I just wanted to inform you that I am trying to get help
from the Free Sowtware Foundation on our copyright problems.

Bye

Dominik
-- 
Dominik Vogt, Hewlett-Packard GmbH, Dept. BVS
Herrenberger Str.130, 71034 Boeblingen, Germany
phone: 07031/14-4596, fax: 07031/14-3883, [email-masked]
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.hpc.uh.edu/fvwm/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the
body of a message to [email-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked].

---

From: /users/domivogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 20:56:51 +0100

Hi Steve,

> Much as I like, admire, and release all my sources under GPL, I wonder if
> it is fair to take old code and "re-license" it?  By all means, we should
> ask people to GPL their code, but what about the ones we cannot contact? 
> 
> Is there a problem with the copyright of fvwm as it exists now?

Distributors like debian keep asking us about this. The copyright
situation is quite unclear in the code. There are lots of different
styles of copyrights. Most of them allow anyone to do anything they
like with the code as long as the copyright is not touched. I.e.
anyon can take fvwm and sell it as a proprietary product and enhance
it without giving anything back to the communnity. This is probably
no more fair than re-licensing existing code. I think most of the
copyrights aloow us to put it under GPL, but that is one of the
reasons I contacted the FSF for. Personally I *do* mind if someone
puts my code in a proprietary product. I do not want to be paid for
my work, but I do not want anyone to make money with it without
contributing to the community.

Bye

Dominik

---

From: /users/domivogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 21:48:03 +0100

I have got some feedback on this by some holders of the
copyrights of some of the files in the distribution.
Overall most people would be more happy if we put fvwm
under some kind of 'open source' license and I have
no objections against that. In the end we will have a
COPYING file with a few exceptions, but all would have
one in common: the right to distribute is granted if
the copyrights are left intact. The one exception are
the twm copyrights which furter demand that no advertising
is done with the name of the copyright holders.

Can we live with that?

Bye

Dominik

---

From: /users/domivogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 22:01:45 +0100

archive/COPYING2 is another (much shorter) draft of a
COPYING file (without GPL) that just grants the right
to distribute (with some limitations for the twm-
copyrighted files). Modifying the code is still handled
in the individual files, but this may be a good start.

Any comments?

Bye

Dominik

---

From: Dan Espen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 16:02:37 -0500

> is done with the name of the copyright holders.

I can.

--
Dan Espen                                Phone: (732) 699-5570
444 Hoes Lane  Room RRC 1C-214           E-mail: [email-masked]
Piscataway, NJ 08854
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.hpc.uh.edu/fvwm/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the
body of a message to [email-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked].

---

From: Austin Donnelly <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 21:42:37 +0000 (GMT)

> > is done with the name of the copyright holders.

I haven't read the COPYING file myself (not had time to set up a CVS
tree), but Debian will be happy so long as the position is clear,
rather than the muddled state of affairs that's currently the case.

Austin

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 20:06:03 +0100

> rather than the muddled state of affairs that's currently the case.

It's still not finished. It will take some time, but before 2.2
we will have *one* file that explains the copyrights (there will
be some exceptions from the general copyright, but that will be
in the file too).

Bye

Dominik