Here are some chat logs and comments related to LegalDepartment.


comments:

discussion --#zwiki, Day, 11 Nov 2004 00:00:00 -0800 reply
sm: we have to resolve the copyright question.. I will respond
sm: I'm not trying to steal your code :)
sm: as you know
bsm117532: No, I want you to steal my code. :)
bsm117532: Have others assigned you copyright explicitly, or is this the first time this has come up?
bsm117532: BTW if you're busy, I don't want to pull you from work...we can schedule a time to talk about this later.
sm: thx.. we're winding down.. I can type a little
sm: I have handled it informally so far
sm: I try to check it verbally with anyone new contributing a big chunk of code
sm: for small stuff I don't bother - they are assumed to be public domain or "not a problem"
bsm117532: I don't think that's good enough. I think actual copyright transfer requires a written agreement.
sm: yes
bsm117532: So I think effectively zwiki has many copyright holders.
sm: I knew we might have to be more formal at some point
sm: in a court of law you might be right
bsm117532: I'd rather not...I like this way, "Just not worry about it" ... then you end up with GPL + many copyright holders.
bsm117532: It's a fine system unless someone intends to relicense the whole thing.
bsm117532: besides coders hate worrying about this.
sm: so far I feel everybody has verbally agreed.. you're the first not to, so it's now time to discuss it more
bsm117532: everyone has agreed that you own copyright?
sm: yes, in two senses -
sm: 1 the people I mentioned it to when accepting their code didn't object
sm: 2 it's the copyright notice in the codebase they are contributing to
sm: so sure, someone might now say no I didn't intend that, I claim copyright of that code there I contributed last year
sm: but my feeling that's not too likely or the code affected could be removed
bsm117532: yes
sm: and I'm excluding small contributions - I don't think people can argue they own copyright of a small change to a project with existing copyright statement unless they explicitly include a copyright notice with it
sm: so I think your contributions so far fall under the "copyright simon and we're ok with that" category - would you agree ? excluding latexwiki
sm: I mean the stuff I've accepted in main repo
sm: about "just not worry about it" and multiple copyright holders - I don't like this for two reasons
bsm117532: No...well what it comes down to is the legal meaning of the statment "(c) 1999-2003 Simon Michael <simon@joyful.com> for the zwiki community."
sm: 1 it might indeed be desirable to relicense - especially in the past, I really wanted to get in zope cvs, and ZPL is a requirement
sm: the same thing comes up again with zope 3
bsm117532: That, to me, does not obviously imply copyright assignment...
bsm117532: I've read ZPL, I'm happy with it.
sm: and also from possible GPL changes in future, which could be important to follow, we don't know
bsm117532: I'd be happy to call my stuff ZPL, but that requires a dual copyright assignment to the Zope corporation.
bsm117532: Also ZPL and GPL are compatibile. So could we have a codebase containing some ZPL and some GPL?
sm: 2 only copyright holder can enforce license, and simple copyright situations are more enforceable
sm: I am in agreement with the FSF on this
sm: let's talk more about ZPL.. I have thought about it a lot
sm: but not just now.. I think we can probably treat that separately from the copyright policy eh
bsm117532: Tell you what...I'm going to ask on debian-legal about the meaning of the statement "(c) 1999-2003 Simon Michael <simon@joyful.com> for the zwiki community."
bsm117532: (or do you know a better resource to ask such a question?)
sm: I don't think you'll get much light :)
bsm117532: I've had a go-round on debian-legal before (different project).
bsm117532: they've been quite helpful.
sm: ok
bsm117532: I mean, if you desire to hold the copyright, you should figure out if the above statement is adequate. If not, you'll have to implement procedures such that you actually do own the copyright.
sm: I think the meaning of any copyright statement in a free software project is really determined by who has the biggest legal resources
bsm117532: If it's not adequate, we should consider more seriously where to go from here, because the copyright status of the whole project is then questionable.
bsm117532: This is true. ;)
sm: so I did not think a bulletproof policy was possible
sm: so I have not tried to make it so, but
bsm117532: But there has been little/no litigation on open source projects.
bsm117532: Anyway, I'll ask, and copy you.
sm: it is the only copyright statement in the project, and I've tried to filter out any contributions with different ideas
bsm117532: Once this is resolved, are there other issues in pulling my stx patches?
sm: so I figured one can make a good argument that it is the effective copyright on the whole codebase, and if necessary remove the minor contributions which just don't go along with that
sm: if it ever came up in court
bsm117532: Well one cannot "undo" copyright violation, if one were accused of violating the law...
sm: I think simplicity and following known policies of the FSF are no guarantee but at least give you the best chance
bsm117532: Well we're not following FSF policies. FSF has a written copyright transfer agreement.
sm: yes of course
sm: that's a barrier to contributions, and I didn't want to go there before I had to
bsm117532: I know.
bsm117532: So for the future is the only relicensing issue to make the whole thing ZPL? Anything else? You own a software company, no? Do you ever intend to sell this?
sm: I wanted to keep the option to relicense to customers developing proprietary sw, as a possible income generator
sm: like mysql
bsm117532: That, I disagree with.
sm: but I no longer think of that; I'm more concerned with a simple license that is philosophically right for me; enables the greatest amount of contribution and reuse; and is strongest against any kind of hazard down the road such as SCO-style corporate attack
bsm117532: ack sco. blech.
sm: hope it never is a problem, but never is a long time, and free software is highly disruptive to old industry
sm: makes sense ?
bsm117532: yes
sm: good
sm: I need to break here; shall we talk more on this anon ?
sm: and can I archive it on the wiki ?
bsm117532: I think the ZPL is essentially a dual use license like that, so the Zope corp can relicense for profit.
bsm117532: yes.
bsm117532: I'm writing to debian-legal now.
sm: excellent.. thanks bsm117532
bsm117532: thanks
sm: catch you later
bsm117532: l8r g8r

cf debian-legal thread

(new) zwiki copyright status --Bob McElrath?, Mon, 15 Nov 2004 17:21:26 -0800 reply
Someone copied my query to licensing@fsf.org (which is the wrong place to send it) - wasn't me. Anyway, this is their answer.

----- Forwarded message from Dave Turner via RT <licensing@fsf.org> -----

From: Dave Turner via RT <licensing@fsf.org> Reply-To: licensing@fsf.org To: bob+zwiki@mcelrath.org Subject: [gnu.org #214404]? zwiki copyright status X-RT-Original-Encoding: utf-8 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=2.64
[bob+zwiki@mcelrath.org - Fri Nov 12 15:12:51 2004]?:

The ZWiki project (a wiki engine for the Zope framework, package zope-zwiki in debian main) contains a copyright statement on files:

(c) 1999-2003 Simon Michael <simon@joyful.com> for the zwiki community.

The project is GPL2, however the maintainer (Simon Michael) desires that he own the copyright for the project, as is recommended by the FSF for legal defense purposes. However there are many contributors:

http://zwiki.org/ZwikiContributors

A written agreement of copyright transfer has not been obtained for any contributor, however verbal agreements to this effect have been obtained for most of the larger contributions. We all wish this to remain free software and do not anticipate hostile action against the code. We have placed relevant copyright information, and a recent irc chat on the subject here:

http://zwiki.org/LicenseAndCopyright

Our questions are these:

  1. Does the above constitute a valid copyright transfer? Given the above, what is the copyright status of this project? Are the copyrights still held by individual contributors or are they (in your legal opinion) actually held by the maintainer?

I'm not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice.

Copyright transfers must be made in writing.

2. The maintainer may wish to relicense the codebase under the ZPL:

http://www.zope.org/Resources/ZPL

and contribute the code to the Zope product (which requires an explicit written dual-copyright where the copyright holder transfers half ownership to the Zope corporation). Could the maintainer perform this action, legally, or must he contact each contributor and ask them to re-assign half their copyright to the Zope corporation?

The latter.

3. The maintainer may wish to relicense the codebase under a proprietary license, for profit-generating purposes. Is the above copyright sufficent to allow him to do this?

No.

4. Can anyone address the robustness of any of the above licensing to SCO-style attacks, or any attack for that matter? What should we do to improve or clarify the situation? A move to ZPL is being contemplated.

We think SCO is unlikely to prevail with respect on any of the important GPL-related portions of its claims.

-- -Dave "Novalis" Turner GPL Compliance Engineer Free Software Foundation

----- End forwarded message -----

discussion --#zwiki, Day, 19 Nov 2004 00:00:00 -0800 reply
sm: bsm117532 you're right I'm mulling this over (in my copious free time)
sm: but you are missing a point
sm: as of now I can probably get written agreements and establish simple copyright policy; if I accept your patch as of now, I can't
sm: giving up the possibility of a simple copyright, the ability to enforce it, and to change license, and the is not a step to be taken lightly
sm: so to say there's no reason not to accept your patch is incorrect
sm: that's MHO
sm: your and my goals wrt copyright are in conflict and prevent us sharing code atm
bsm117532: sm: What do you intend to do with the copyright?
bsm117532: My only concern is that it would disappear from a free license.
bsm117532: With you as the only copyright holder, you have the power to remove my ability to use and work on my own code, and that is not acceptable.
bsm117532: I have no problem with any kind of dual licensing you might want to try so that you could sell the code, as long as it also is available under a free license.
bsm117532: (I like the ZPL concept of dual-copyright holder in this regard)
bsm117532: Do you actually intend to pursue copyright transfer? I think this exercise is more difficult than you imagine.
bsm117532: I think it is far too high a hurdle for a project as small as zwiki, and would effectively kill the project.
bsm117532: On the other hand, since it is currently GPL, we can take any current version, fork and continue development, even if you close off your branch, no matter who has the copyright.
bsm117532: My statement is correct: my contribution is no different than anyone else's with the current codebase.
sm: hi.. those are valid concerns, which I will address clearly
sm: I'm working on a bit of a license faq right now
sm: it's time
sm: I can't see how your statement ("makes no difference if you accept my latest code") is correct
sm: because it has an explicit denial of copyright transfer attached
sm: that makes a difference, surely
bsm117532: it only matters if you relicense.
bsm117532: The GPL is a share-alike license.
bsm117532: I share my code with the expectation that I be able to use your code, and that I see future enhancements to my code.
bsm117532: With a copyright holder that is not myself, you could take the code proprietary, and begin to modify and enhance my code, without sharing with me.
bsm117532: That is not the spirit in which I share, and that is why I do not want to transfer copyright.
bsm117532: anyway, gotta run...ttyl.

legal muscle --Bob McElrath?, Tue, 23 Nov 2004 17:37:14 -0800 reply
I take issue with the statement above:

Legal muscle counts for more than copyright statements in court.

This is just not true. The law is the law.

We all have a healthy paranoia about being sued, especially since we are all "little guys". However, legally, we can all be sued, at any time, for anything at all. There is nothing we can do to prevent being sued. However we can make sure that we will win in the event that we are sued. Unjustified suits like the current SCO caper cannot be avoided. If an unscrupulous actor decides to dump millions of dollars into suing us, there is not much we can do. However courts are very leniant toward persons willing to defend themselves, and not hire a lawyer.

Therefore, we should make sure our copyright status is understood and legal as far as we can discover. These discussions can be admissable in court as evidence of what we all understood, and can lend legal weight to our agreements. "Community standards" do carry legal weight, and our community standards are (will be) well-documented.

Lastly, let me point out that in 2000 the US congress passed a law enabling digital signatures. However that law failed to define what qualifies as a digital signature. (I fear that my -- Bob at the end of emails could be claimed legally binding) The American Bar Association has a page outlining guildelines for using digital signatures . Thus it might be possible to transfer copyright without snail-mailing each other papers.

However, I think this would be unwise. As there are contributors from all over the world, other governments may not respect these digital signatures. Written, signed agreements are respected and understood the world over.

But enough about that. I think we should retain the current status (GPL + multiple copyright holders) until such time as it is deemed useful to change. There is no pressing need to change immediately. I think the possibility of a hostile suit against zwiki is vanishingly remote. There are hundreds of wiki implementations, and hundreds of zope packages, and I see no reason anyone could possibly have for singling us out for legal action.

-- Bob

discussion --#zwiki, Day, Jan Nov 2006 00:00:00 -0800 reply
sm: I have more to write on LegalDepartment, but let me tell you guys what I'm thinking
sm: I think the conservancy/single copyright holder and publisher/multiple copyright holder models each have pros & cons and I'm leaning towards trying one of each
DeanG: how?
sm: well.. I'm glad you asked me that q..
sm: the latter has lower contribution barrier and would grow faster
sm: and it's the only model which allows us to accomodate ornery coders like bob
sm: actually, point of clarification: bob would you ever consider assigning copyright (first model) if conditions were different ? eg if it were a foundation, relicensing compensation details were explicit, etc. ?
DeanG: foundation? Plone Collective Assimilation?
sm: yes, you can imagine a zwiki foundation or GNU or something being an easier entity for people to decide to assign to, than an individual
DeanG: nod
sm: but of course that's a lot of overhead for a small/young project
sm: I'm wondering if the natural path is for projects to start out with the multi-copyright-holder model.. lowest hassle for contributors; and only when it grows and/or the community becomes more aware of/concerned about legal standing, then it transitions to the assigned-copyright model
sm: you may not be able to make that transition if everyone doesn't agree of course, but you try to create conditions that will make it possible if it's ever needed, and you accept that bits might have to be removed
DeanG: what's blocking a contributor assigning copyright to you now [or under the multi-model]?
sm: nothing.. that's how it's been until now, except we haven't exchanged paper so it's all theoretical and verbal
sm: but bob has (helpfully) raised these issues by not wanting to assign copyright on his latest stx work
bsm117531: sm: I would assign copyright, if the terms of such assignment were known. ;)
sm: ah ok, that's what I was wondering
bsm117531: I think you're right on the transition...small projects don't worry about it, and big ones (e.g. any FSF project) makes it explicit.
bsm117531: But "not worrying about it" is a pragmatic stance, not a legal one.
sm: so we may yet be able to continue with single copyright holder model.. which certainly avoids a whole lot of complication with maintaining two codebases
bsm117531: The accurate legal statement in the "not worry about it" case is that there are many copyright holders.
DeanG: what does it take to get something in writing? Will a creative commons license work?
sm: bsm117531 remind me of the unclear terms that stop you from assigning right now - is it just the question of whether I could relicense for pay, and not give back to you ?
sm: DeanG: getting something in writing to make a copyright transfer or anything have legally force, just means getting the contributor to send some paper with their signature
sm: I believe. Like ZC contributor agreement.
bsm117531: sm: You could change the license, and hide future developments from me.
sm: ah yes.. going closed-source
bsm117531: As long as it stays GPL I have no problem, but then there's little argument for assigning copyright at all...
bsm117531: except for the legal-defense argument.
sm: so a commitment to always keep an OSI-approved license (allows change between GPL versions, ZPL, CC etc)
bsm117531: Of course, if you changed the license, a fork based on the last GPL version would appear...
sm: bsm117531: yes
bsm117531: sure, that would be fine.
bsm117531: But after copyright transfer, keeping an OSI-approved license is unenforcable by me. (I ain't gonna sue over any of this...)
sm: ...but also, if the community wants to remain open to the possibility of benefitting from a cash injection - allow non-exclusive relicensing to commercial organizations for pay ? without affecting the open license of course
sm: ...and if necessary, some conditions on the use of such pay, or procedures for distributing it among contributors ?
sm: I'm just imagining the range of options
bsm117531: why would an organization need "non-exclusive relicensing"?
bsm117531: I think that means: start a separate, closed, development branch.
sm: if they want to ship a product based on zwiki, but they don't want to GPL it - then they pay for a one-time relicensing to them
bsm117531: If they're forced to return contributions to us, there is no benefit for them to have a closed branch at all...
sm: this is how mysql and others I can't remember make their living
sm: see ? they pay just to get around the GPL
bsm117531: As I have mentioned, I'm fine with the ZPL, and necessary copyright assignment for that.
sm: but the community continues working in the open
sm: flush with cash
bsm117531: ZPL is okay because it promises to keep the OSS version.
bsm117531: if the relicensing allows the licensee to develop a separate branch, and NOT contribute changes back to us, then I oppose it.
sm: I'm not really thinking about specific licenses right now - too many issues at once
bsm117531: yeah
bsm117531: but, realistically, anybody who bought such a relicensing would sit on their hands when it came to contributing back...even if legally required to.
bsm117531: That, presumably, would hurt their cashflow.
sm: so if a corp offered you $10000 to get a one-time non-GPL license of the LatexWiki code, so they could use it in their closed-source project, you wouldn't take it ? even though it would allow you to work on it full time for a month or more ?
bsm117531: So requiring contributions back is kind of moot...
bsm117531: no, I wouldn't.
sm: ie they'd be contributing back by funding you.. any patches that came from them would be gravy
sm: ok, that's clear
DeanG: if you made a change while funded that you couldn't make to the open version, becvuase that's now their property...
bsm117531: I don't code for money...I code with the expectation that I receive any enhancements to what I've written.
sm: dean: no, they have no ownership of the open version
bsm117531: i.e. the spirit of the GPL.
sm: they only have a license to use the current version without shipping source of their entire project
sm: they've paid you for granting a special exception to the license, not transfer of ownership
bsm117531: Keep in mind that under the GPL, a company can ship and sell their product. Python is a scripting language, after all, so the GPL provisions which require distribution of source code are automatic.
sm: all this is extremely theoretical you understand - it's never been offered in zwiki's history - but I want to be sure before I rule out any source of income that could be of extreme benefit to all of us
bsm117531: Now, what happens when company DooDad makes a bunch of neat enhancements, doesn't contribute them back, and then at some point down the line goes out of business?
bsm117531: those enhancements are totally lost to us.
sm: we don't care
bsm117531: I've seen it happen before...even under the GPL.
bsm117531: I care.
sm: we have the cash, our open version is already much better than theirs
bsm117531: I don't get the cash. (presumably)
bsm117531: you do.
sm: well imagine you did
bsm117531: how would you divide up such funds?
sm: imagine the cash is shared among all copyright holders
sm: ignoring the details for now
bsm117531: BTW I think this possibility is vanishingly remote.
bsm117531: But if you have examples, I'd like to hear...
sm: I'm probing the kinds of agreement you'd be happy with, in theory, using you as a test case
bsm117531: Anyone selling Plone?
sm: enfold systems, I think
bsm117531: How do they handle it?
bsm117531: Actually I gotta run...
sm: the plone-ip list describes it I think
DeanG: Their website doesn't specify if they sell it or not, certainly the deployment and maybe hosting.
sm: ok bob, thanks for the chat
bsm117531: np
sm: thanks dean.. probably time for me to go cook, too
bsm117531: I know you make a living at this sm...
DeanG: So the Plone Foundation allows the GPL'd Plone to be resold with "closed" modifications? Odd. I thought htey just sold closed add-ons, like Zope Corp.
bsm117531: Perhaps it would be best to outline (at least for yourself) how you want to make your money in the future.
sm: I don't.. but if I did.. zwiki would have been a hell of a lot better long ago
sm: it's much simpler to say we won't ever relicense for money, and I might do that
bsm117531: DeanG: that sounds like a GPL violation...
sm: but I want to explore the options
sm: because the community also benefits IMHO
bsm117531: I think we should factor in the probability of someone requesting relicensing.
bsm117531: Well, the community benefits most by open code.
bsm117531: (back to the DooDad company going out of business)...when that happens we all lose.
bsm117531: No company is solvent on an infinite time scale...
sm: not necessarily: because they paid, and we got to create much more open code as a result
bsm117531: They won't pay enough to duplicate the development effort they put into it.
sm: because we got to work on zwiki instead of drudge work that benefits noone
bsm117531: Their time is worth more than ours.
bsm117531: Keep in mind most of us have other day jobs...money is totally not an issue for me.
bsm117531: getting paid to work on OSS is a rare luxury, unfortunately.
sm: it doesn't have to be

Plone clarification -- Wed, 26 Jan 2005 22:09:34 -0800 reply
http://plone.org/about/copyrights/license-faq

http://www.enfoldsystems.com/Products/Server/Pricing

http://www.zopezen.org/Members/andy/news_item.2005-01-19.0604526692

discussion --#zwiki, Day, 16 May 2005 00:00:00 -0800 reply
sm: bsm117531: want to push it to zwiki-exp ?
bsm117531: I modified my old zwiki...
bsm117531: surely you've hacked wikipage since...
sm: darcs may handle it
bsm117531: wait what's the latest?
sm: 0.41
bsm117531: oh it's only 0.40 maybe it will work.
sm: did you see the new http://zwiki.org/ZwikiDarcs#1.5 ?
sm: and above
bsm117531: yes
sm: are you ok with one copyright holder/license per file ?
bsm117531: ugh not this again
sm: yes. I made the zwiki-exp repo so you could contribute your work, but I proposed a granularity of one copyright holder per file
bsm117531: the usual policy on simple patches is to place them into the public domain.
bsm117531: I place this into the public domain.
sm: great
sm: thank you
bsm117531: ok sent
sm: looks good!
bsm117531: speedup wasn't as dramatic as I hoped.
bsm117531: hasIssues and ratingform are still the worst. But 1000 things that take 0.01s each too...
sm: but this one has no real cost in clarity, so it's worth it
sm: now I know you'll find me tedious, but bear with me as I think this through..
sm: I want to pull this, the first patch from zwiki-exp to main zwiki..
sm: I don't want to lose main zwiki's current single copyright holder status..
sm: you've placed it under public domain..
bsm117531: k...why would you?
bsm117531: well...
bsm117531: I think this falls under the "aggregate work" form of copyright.
bsm117531: you can assemble things that are in the public domain and claim copyright on it, but you couldn't prevent someone else from doing the same.
bsm117531: e.g. classic literature is copyrighted in this manner.
bsm117531: despite the fact that the Iliad (the work itself) is out of copyright.
sm: I feel you are right
bsm117531: and therefore public domain.
bsm117531: the FSF recommends to put small patches in the public domain.
sm: just having a hard time seeing it in detail.. too late in the day perhaps
bsm117531: i don't think you would have a problem with this, no matter what copyright you claimed on the codebase.
sm: I mean can I still act as copyright holder, change license etc. if I have incorporated public domain patches ?
bsm117531: well...
sm: presumably!
bsm117531: if you can't, then neither can the FSF.
sm: excellent
bsm117531: FSF recommends assigning copyright to them, and also public domain small-patches.
***bsm117531 is beginning to massively hate coprights.
sm: of course.. but there's no way to avoid this stuff for the next while.. :/
sm: or if there is, I'd like to know about it

discussion --#zwiki, Day, 25 May 2005 00:00:00 -0800 reply
bsm117531: I have several patches in my repo for 6 months now that you never pulled.
bsm117531: Is there some reason you don't want them?
bsm117531: "Remove images in links."
bsm117531: "Use StructuredText, don't fight it."
sm: you didn't want to assign copyright, remember
sm: how is your stx stuff distributed in the various files ?
sm: in this repo, you can keep copyright yourself if you want - but I'd like to have one copyright holder & license per file
sm: I figured the stx page type could work this way
bsm117531: so is that your final word.
bsm117531: You never will accept my stx patches?
bsm117531: The patches I just sent to zwik-exp-repo are small, not the bit stx rewrite.
sm: yes I know.. and I see the error report you just sent.. I'll investigate
bsm117531: one was sent immediately afterward claiming conflicts...
bsm117531: I don't understand how this patch can be the only difference between your repo and mine, yet there are conflicts...
sm: I think unpull leaves things unrecorded.. I have to revert
sm: done, that should fix the conflicts
bsm117531: should I send again?
sm: yes please
bsm117531: resent...another error...forwarded...
sm: I will have to investigate.. can you give me the names of the patches which gave these two errors ?
bsm117531: "Remove images in links.", "cleanlink -- clean up Latex-in-WikiName patch.", "Use StructuredText, don't fight it."
bsm117531: they're all in my repo if you want to pull them.
sm: thanks
bsm117531: And will you answer my question? Will you never accept my stx contribution?
sm: but you still have questions about my stx policy, let's discuss that
sm: as before, I would like to see you working happily and productively somewhere where we can all see and try out and participate
bsm117531: we've discussed it round and round.
sm: that can't be the main zwiki repo, for now, because you can't accept my copyright policy
bsm117531: "for now"
bsm117531: would that ever change?
sm: yes; I don't rule out a change
sm: nor promise it
bsm117531: It's been more than 6 months.
sm: you should not be waiting
bsm117531: that we've been discussing this.
sm: so I've made an experimental repo which is more relaxed; like the collective
bsm117531: I'm not...
bsm117531: but that is essentially a fork if I start contributing to that and not to the main repo.
bsm117531: If I'm going to fork I might as well do it myself...
sm: and I'm waiting to hear about problems with the ZWiki-exp policy, if any
sm: perhaps there are some - perhaps you don't want to be in zwiki-exp, perhaps the single-file single-copyright holder policy can't work for your changes
sm: please give me some constructive input :)
bsm117531: there is no input I can give. I am not willing to allow my contributions to be taken proprietary, therefore I am not willing to assign copyright to you.
bsm117531: Machinations with repos just distract from the issue.
sm: well, how can I accomodate you in this project ? that is something I want to do
bsm117531: Give up on the idea of owning the copyright for the entire thing.
bsm117531: BTW I'm still getting mails about that last failed patch.
sm: I did, in the zwiki-exp repo
sm: what's wrong with using that ?
bsm117531: it's a fork.
sm: a branch
bsm117531: If I'm going to fork I'm going to do it myself so I have more control.
sm: so ?
sm: if it gets better, people will use it instead
sm: and it is centrally located, not out in the wilderness
bsm117531: no one will use it except developers unless someone makes "releases".
bsm117531: do you intend to do that with zwiki-exp-repo?
sm: I don't know
bsm117531: no you don't.
sm: there's no reason to yet, is there ?
bsm117531: If I do make releases, it's really a fork...
bsm117531: no, not yet...
bsm117531: anyhoo, this is moot until I produce the patch...
bsm117531: which, right now, is sitting on a dead hard drive at the toshiba repair center...
bsm117531: I'm not all that hopeful I will see it again.
bsm117531: If I have to start over, I will probably write a yacc/bison parser from a true grammar...
sm: if you decide to publicise zwiki-bob on your server as a/the public shared-copyright zwiki repo, perhaps zwiki-exp will be redundant
sm: nothing wrong with that, except being closely beside zwiki main, on the same server etc I think it makes keeping them in sync more likely
sm: I'm heading out bsm117531
sm: whatever happens, let's not fight. If you feel that forking more will make you happier, just do it. Of course I'd prefer that you stay as much in the main body of developers as possible - it's more fun if we can build up some critical mass
sm: but autonomous projects can be productive too and darcs can help with sharing useful bits
sm: I'll send an update on those latest pushing errors soon
sm: later
bsm117531: sm: having zwiki-exp on the same server only helps with keeping it in sync with zwiki since you maintain it.
bsm117531: that's one good thing about these distributed repos -- anyone can pull. If only I could keep darcs from corrupting everything... :(