Contribution agreements (Re: [sldev] What is the point of firstlook and giving feedback to LL)

[Jesse Barnett]

On 4/21/08, Justin Ryan <justizin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> There is a problem with this outlook, and it is not unique to
> companies like LL - in fact the Free Software Foundation's Head
> Counsel was involved in authoring the Plone Foundation's contributor
> agreement which allows the same.
>
> GPL code is not valuable simply because it exists in GPL, but because
> it is, or should be, original ideas protected from ever being non-GPL.
>   The alternative is that you propose to sell the authors their code at
> some point.
>
> The problem here is that LL thinks of its' GPL creation(s) as
> something that it *owns* rather than *has the responsibility to
> protect*.  You won't get any contributions from me directly as a
> member of the F/OSS community to a project where you can take credit
> for my code, and decide without my permission to use it as part of
> your business, without compensation.  This is not an equal seat at the
> table and quite frankly, given that the Computer Graphics industry as
> a whole takes SL for something of the AOL of Metaverses, I think it is
> just a question of when, not whether, there will be a horrible decline
> in interest as other offerings based on truly open technology grow.
>
> That is, unless LL has enough foresight to see that, for one, they
> would be better served by existing as several small companies - an
> outlook that your average
>
> I-care-more-about-being-big-enough-for-an-IPO-that-will-never-happen-than-my-customers-happiness
> startup could really grow to embrace.  The fact is that LL is an
> overglorified web hosting company with a product that will never be
> Free or Open-Source enough to allow for competition.
>
> Furthermore, existing GPL code may not be an acceptable contribution
> to a project which has a contributor agreement.  My experience is that
> people pay these things lip service, that noone has any idea the
> original source of ideas in their dual licensed source code, and that
> it is very likely someone agreed on behalf of other people.
>
> In my opinion, what this makes clear for organizations like Linden Lab
> and Plone Foundation is that it is a litigation risk to enter into
> such a model.
>
> Also, it's ethically an ethically fragile approach to say the last.
> RMS promised me that he would write an essay on this some time ago
> when I raised caine with the Plone Foundation, but I'm sure he's other
> things to do than criticize his own staff. ;)
>
> Cheers!
>
> Justin
>
> --
> Justin Alan Ryan
> Independent Interaction Architect
> http://www.bitmonk.net/
> * : +1-415-226-1199
>
> "I never meant to hurt anyone,
>   or help anyone.."
>   -Bender
>
> Some will always disagree with the license, which is fine. Other view
points keep everyone constantly
thinking about an incredibly important matter. But you can't really
lump the other arguments about what others think of the platform into
the same response.

I have been more then vocal on some subjects in the past and don't agree
with everything LL does.
But by voicing my concerns I hope to get others to at least consider my
position. No matter what our individual pet peeves are, I think the majority
here agree that there is a future, hopefully a very bright future for the
platform. If I didn't think so, I would have already left.

 I have been looking and nothing else comes close yet to what LL offers and
the ease with which people can create the world around them.

Jesse Barnett
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.secondlife.com/pipermail/sldev/attachments/20080421/d4aacfe8/attachment-0001.htm