3 ms·
Copyright is only with respect to the code. What's being done here is changes to how the project is managed. Basically inserting an upper management over the h
by jabbany 5y ago
Copyright is only with respect to the code.
What's being done here is changes to how the project is managed. Basically inserting an upper management over the heads of existing maintainers. AFAIK, this right was not given (or at least the maintainers did not intend to give) to the umbrella org.
- still_grokking 5y agoBut if you gave away copyright you don't own the project any more. And if you don't own it, you don't own it… The new owner can do further on how he pleases. Sad in this case(es) but from a legal standpoint it's very likely like that, I guess (INAL).
- oaiey 5y agoYeah, but a stupid owner does what they did as nuclear options, a smart owner has the power but never use them but convinces people and let them work loosely as long as this is possible. This is a cooperate thinking applied to a foundation. Is a recipe for failure.
- didibus 5y agoI'm pretty sure the copyright is shared, at least that's how I've seen CLA's happen in the past, they grant joint ownership.
- robmen 5y agoSome projects are "contribution" (like you describe) and some are "assignment" (.NET Foundation holds the copyright).
- robmen 5y agoThe copyright applies to the source code the copyright is written on. Lawyers then argue who owns the "project" (GitHub organization/repository). For example, the copyright is not applied to the issues in the issue tracker. But the argument is about whether the .NET Foundation could do such a thing. The argument is whether they should. And, the .NET Foundation chooses that they should take over the projects, project maintainers can make different decisions themselves. None of this has been decided yet.
- robmen 5y agoImportant to note, this extra layer was added without discussing it would be done before or after. The lack of communication eroded trust.