Comments on: Microsoft Frees CodePlex: Now What? The Q&A

By: Classification of CAA and CLA

Classification of CAA and CLA — Mon, 30 May 2011 19:25:18 +0000

[...] → Codeplex CLA concerns http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2009/09/11/codeplex/ [...]

By: Proaction Mentors » Blog Archive » 3 Reasons Microsoft Needs an Open Source Officer

Sun, 17 Oct 2010 20:45:25 +0000

[...] Monk’s Q&A on the CodePlex [...]

By: Microsoft Forms the CodePlex Foundation for Open Source Contributions

Microsoft Forms the CodePlex Foundation for Open Source Contributions — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 16:45:47 +0000

[...] looking at why Microsoft created this foundation, Stephen O’Grady at RedMonk says: “Microsoft has clearly had issues with its employees contributing to various open [...]

By: Fox ‘News’ Brings Microsoft to “Open Source” | Boycott Novell

Fox ‘News’ Brings Microsoft to “Open Source” | Boycott Novell — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 09:09:52 +0000

[...] For Microsoft, causing all this confusion is part of the plan. And “plan” they sure do. [...]

By: 3 Reasons Microsoft Needs an Open Source Officer « Developing UX

3 Reasons Microsoft Needs an Open Source Officer « Developing UX — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 15:21:12 +0000

[...] Monk’s Q&A on the CodePlex [...]

By: eduardo montez

eduardo montez — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 00:15:41 +0000

Andy Updegrove on CodePlex

http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20090914102959510

By: Frank Hecker

Frank Hecker — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 14:55:36 +0000

A minor clarification: You wrote “Certainly there are cases where the foundation is sufficiently trusted as independent for this ["full copyright ownership"] to work: Mozilla operates this way, as does the FSF.” This might confuse people into thinking that the Mozilla project requires copyright assignment. It does not. Contributors to Mozilla retain copyright, and simply grant the public rights to use the code under the Mozilla trilicense scheme (MPL/GPL/LGPL).

There’s a lot of Mozilla code that is copyright by the Mozilla Foundation, but that’s because it was written by Mozilla employees. All of the original Mozilla code is still copyright Netscape (now AOL), and lots of code is copyright by a host of individual and corporate contributors. That’s why when the Mozilla project moved from the MPL to the trilicense it had to contact all the contributors and ask their permission for the relicensing.

By: Mark Callaghan

Mark Callaghan — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 14:08:53 +0000

@Brian,

The claim that ‘Drizzle uses BSD’ is easy for others to misinterpret. People can do whatever they want with the contributions as they are BSD. They cannot do whatever they want with Drizzle as it is not BSD.

Drizzle allows Sun to dual-license Drizzle whether or not the project promotes that.

By: Brian Aker

Brian Aker — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 03:31:17 +0000

@Mark

I think you are still missing the point about copyright/etc with regards to Drizzle. We use the BSD so that people can release/do whatever they want to with the code going forward. One person can add a new module and then not worry about whether or not they can use the extensions that other people make to it.

Dual licensing is difficult and fraught with a lot of complexity. Drizzle, at least the ones of us targeting the current development, do not look at the OEM model at all (which is where dual license really makes sense). We made drivers fully BSD and for what reason? To remove the complexity around mismatched licenses.

By: Mark Callaghan

Mark Callaghan — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 19:46:04 +0000

Maybe Drizzle has eschewed the centralized copyright model, but the outcome is the same for Sun. It started with code owned by Sun and all contributions are BSD. Thus only Sun can dual license the code and it is GPL for everyone else.