pentalis at gmail.com
Sun Jun 27 00:39:15 CEST 2010
> (by Pentalis)
> > On a sidenote:
> > I remember Cyrille mentioned something about countries in Europe where a
> > corporation couldn't own copyright over something. If you are reading this:
> > what countries are those?.
> France for certain, Germany too, I think. But it's not that companies cannot
> own copyright: it's that individuals cannot assign their copyright to someone
> (by Boud)
I believe you're confusing Moral Rights (Spanish: Derechos Morales)
with Proprietary Rights (Spanish: Derechos Patrimoniales). I just took
a glance in Wikipedia and while I know it's not the most reliable
source of information, it agrees with the previous knowledge I had,
which is that in law systems like ours (Chilean), you can't transfer
authorship of a work to someone else, as that is a moral right
attached to your person and that it is non-transferable; however, you
can transfer all the rights to exploit your work to someone else,
those are the proprietary rights. In common law systems like the USA,
moral rights do not exist, you can even transfer the right to call the
work your own (i.e.: you can write a book for someone else and
renounce to your right to be recognized as the author, letting him
claim to be the author instead), which is what you can't do in a law
system like France's.
Our system was based on the French system which is why I'm sure that
must be the source of the confusion.
But perhaps Cyrille meant something else.
> (by Boud)
>That is why the KDE e.V. has the fiduciary licensing agreement:
>http://ev.kde.org/rules/fla.php. I still don't think that having many
>copyright holders effectively makes enforcement impossible, but I am not a
I forgot about that!. I read it before I applied to GSoC and I had
just forgotten it.
Hm, examining the document it looks like one would have to print it
and send it by snail mail to the destination. The about page doesn't
give that instruction specifically though, too bad :|
>We can't change the license so the discussion is hypothetical. GPL licensing is more friendly for developers, the need to give >back code is the return service for the development of the code. I think it's just fair that I benefit from the improvements that >someone else does as much as he does from mine. I would not contribute if a BSD license was used, as I think that that it's >not fair.
If I spent a year of my life making a program to maybe one day profit
from, I too would want improvements to be made available back to me.
But if I did it as a way to donate my time, I think I'd rather use a
BSD license or just relinquish my copyright.
The idea of a project composed of many tiny bits of code contributed
by a huge amount of people and that lock the program into a specific
license (big example: Wikipedia) makes me ill just to think about it,
it's too chaotic. That's why I'd either relinquish my copyright and
ask others to do the same (that way the program is in the public
domain and there is no mess), or do what KDE and the FSF are doing,
asking others to let me manage the project in the copyright
(proprietary rights) sense.
>Also I think it's still possible to defend Krita against evil opponents. You should not give up just because there is small risk that >it might fail.
I hope so.
More information about the kimageshop