[Savannah-register-public] [task #14621] Submission of Graph Model Library

[Brook Milligan]

Follow-up Comment #10, task #14621 (project administration):

> > One relevant consequence of this is that in US courts 
> > contributors to software only have standing for their own contribution in
the 
> > absence of some procedure that clearly establishes the right for some
person 
> > or entity to act on their behalf. 
> 
> Do you mean they are denied the right to hire a lawyer? This seems 
> extremely surprising. I believe it would violate the UDHR. 
> Could you support this with some references?

Of course anyone can hire a lawyer to defend their rights.  The point
is that simply enlisting someone (e.g., a lawyer) to defend rights has
no bearing on the rights that can be defended or the potential
remedies that might be obtained.  The goal I am trying to achieve is
simply to clarify what those rights are in as unambiguous a way as
possible given the diversity of legal contexts for interpreting
copyrights.  Those contexts are much more complicated than simply the
"Berne Convention".

> > > > Nothing in the policy I have identified conflicts with anyone's 
> > > > ability to maintain the free status of a GPLed program (or library in

> > > > this case). After all, it is released under the GPL and thus by design

> > > > cannot be made "unfree". 
> > > 
> > > If "Us" decide to release a proprietary version of the library, 
> > > the library in that version will be nonfree. The only people 
> > > who could prevent this are contributors---but if they sign that 
> > > agreement, they can’t. 
> > 
> > This is fundamentally irrelevant to whether this is free software. Yes,
all 
> > sorts of hypothetical things can occur in the future. However, none of
those 
> > activities have any bearing on the rights of people wishing to use
released 
> > code, contributions to that released code, derivative works, or anything
else. 
> 
> Yes, I think the activity of "Us" releasing a proprietary version 
> of the library in binary-only form has some bearing on the rights 
> of people wishing to use derivative works, in particular, 
> that proprietary version of the library. Why doesn't it?

Nobody is obligated to use any particular work of any sort.  Nor is
anyone obligated to contribute to any particular project and may
decline to do so for any reason whatsoever.

In this case, the released code is forever free; contributions to it
are free; anything derived from it is free.  Therefore, it is free
software according to everything put forth by FSF and similar
entities.  Additionally, contributors retain ownership of copyright,
retain moral rights, and have full economic rights regarding their
contributions.

As I said before:

> > This thread has strayed far from the assessment of whether or not
> > a submitted library meets the standards set out by Savannah and
> > should be accepted. You have published a set of requirements and a
> > set of guidelines that are intended to aid the review process. The
> > FSF has published abundant statements regarding what constitutes
> > free software and the rationale behind the value of it. I have
> > created a project in good faith that is appropriately licensed,
> > has appropriately licensed dependencies, and makes no restrictions
> > on ongoing development based upon either the releases or potential
> > contributions. There is nothing here that is in contradiction to
> > the guidelines that have been provided for Savannah projects.

If you feel otherwise, please identify specifically what requirements
or guidelines are not being met by this project.

Please also address the question at hand, which is whether or not this
project is to be accepted by Savannah.


    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <http://savannah.gnu.org/task/?14621>

_______________________________________________
  Message sent via/by Savannah
  http://savannah.gnu.org/