The GPL And Copyright Assignment

The GPL And Copyright Assignment

The GPL And Copyright Assignment by drew Roberts is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

So I was reading this post over at identica and decided to do this quick write up as I did not feel like fighting with the 140 character limit.

I have been pondering this issue for a long time now but somehow perhaps never got around to writing about it or if I did, I forget where.

My thought is that coders should require a binding covenant from the party being assigned the copyrights such that the rights will return to them should there be a breach of the covenant.

The covenant should stipulate that the part and anyone related can never maintain two code bases, one under the GPL and an "enhanced" one available under non-GPL terms only.

I have a feeling that there may be some dirty tricks that can be played to get around the intent of this so it bears some thinking through and discussion.

Now, one possibility to not making such an assignment is to put up patches hosted elsewhere by all coders who want this equality and see if a critical mass of patches is created as a result.

all the best,

drew

Idea for free.domain.abc

Idea for free.domain.abc

Idea for free.domain.abc by drew Roberts is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

This is an idea for sites hosting music, arr, software or whatever under a combination of Free and non-Free licenses.

Consider Jamendo as an example.

currently at http://www.jamendo.com/

my suggestion is to have the current URL but as well:

http://free.jamendo.com/
http://nonfree.jamendo.com/

so that if you go to free.jamendo.com the site will look and act the same except that all non-free content will be filtered out and if you go to nonfree.jamendo.com then all the free content will be filtered out.

Personally I only care for free.jamendo.com and can't see why anyone would want to visit nonfree.jamendo.com instead of www.jamendo.com but I include it here for completeness.

I would like to see kompoz, ccmixter, flickr, youtube and wherever function in this way as well. Kompoz possibly with some slight tweaks as it is a place for collaboratively making music together and may need a refined approach to this.

all the best,

drew

BIFF Idea

BIFF Idea

BIFF Idea by drew Roberts is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

My wife won a Directors Pass to the Bahamas International Film Festival earlier in the year and I have been going to some of the events.

I attended all of the Discussion Panels at the National Art Gallery Of The Bahamas on saturday and Sunday and enjoyed them all.

Saturday's lineup was:

Art Of Collaboration
Film Financing
Filmmaking In The Caribbean

Sunday's lineup was:

Screenwriting
Music And Film

I would say that Sunday's panels were of more value to me personally but Saturdays were perhaps a bit more entertaining.

I had an idea for next year which I shared at the discussion on Music and Film which I want to put down here for further exploration and development. (Future years too if it works out.)

The basic idea is this:

Local Music Showcase for BIFF writers, producers, and directors.

Arrange for one session where local bands can perform their own music for BIFF attendees and a DJ can also play some music for bands who cannot attend but who want their music considered for use in future films by BIFF attendees. This music could be used in films to be shot here in the islands but need not be limited to such use.

all the best,

drew

Open Core Model and Software Quality - the Open Software Take

Open Core Model and Software Quality - the Open Software Take

Open Core Model and Software Quality - the Open Software Take by drew Roberts is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Off the top let me say that I am more of a Free Software guy than an Open Source Software guy. (I get that the licenses basically make them one and the same code wise, I am talking about outlook wise.)

Given that, I am going to try and argue this from the Open Source Software viewpoint. Given that I don't generally spend a lot of time thinking of things from this point of view, I welcome corrections / refinements from those who do.

Open source is a development method for software that harnesses the power of distributed peer review and transparency of process. The promise of open source is better quality, higher reliability, more flexibility, lower cost, and an end to predatory vendor lock-in.

from Open Source Initiative

Reason No. 5 to Move to Open Source, Better Quality

Now, I may not be paying enough attention when I come across software using the Open Core Model, but from what I see it is often offered in a community version and an enterprise version.

I take it that the community version is under an approved Open Source license which is generally (always?) also an approved Free Software license. I further take it that the enterprise edition is not under such a license.

So, thinking on this a bit, if the Open Source guys are correct, then the business following the open core model is offering to the community higher quality software (often for no cost) and to the enterprise lower quality software for a price. Will they admit that, or will they deny the better quality argument and say that the enterprise version is of equal or better quality?

If you can think of any improvements to this line of thinking, please let me know.

all the best,

drew