Re: [phpGroupWare-developers] Dirty play: copyright used as patent

[Chris Weiss]

On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Sigurd Nes <address@hidden> wrote:
> I think the following is important (although is tells how sad Dave really
> is) - because it shed some light on Dave's reluctance to discuss the version
> issue on the GPL.
>
> Dave is "asking" for money.
>
> Also notice his double standard as he makes every contributor assign their
> work over to FSF - except his own.
>
> Look at the code recently contributed to phpgroupware by mr Dave Hall - yep
> - that's right - it's Not FSF holding the Copyright - then it would be less
> likely to be used as a source of income.
>
> I must admit I am really disappointed in Dave - which I find is trying to
> restrict our freedom by using some kind of a semi-patent-approach and even
> trying to take control over a project where he had the role of a
> sub-contractor.
>
> We still want to contribute to phpgroupware - but Dave has to shape up as he
> is not making this any easier.
>
> Anyway - the Resight project staying on GPLv2 is only temporary after all -
> but we would like the back ported FelaMiMail as there is no alternative.
>
> Regards
>
> Sigurd
>
>
>> Now that my contract had ended (as of 5pm, yesterday AEST), any
>> relicensing of my work would not only require my consent, it would incur
>> additional costs.  If ReSight AS wishes to make such a request please
>> forward it in writing to:
>>
>> Dave Hall Consulting
>> PO Box XXX
>> Newstead  YYY XXXX
>> AUSTRALIA
>>

"dirty play" is right.  I find it very unprofessional, if not
downright rude, for you to forward that message to the developers
list.

as far as contract work goes, if the contact allows Dave to hold
copyright, then that's ReSights failure as a business entity to
protect their investment.  And if Dave holds copyright, then he's the
only one that can change the license and it is work for him to do so
and he'd be right to want to charge for that.

Distributing the new felami with phpgw is still against the GPLv2
because of it's linking to a PHP licensed library.  Yes, eGW is
distributed in violation of the GPL, but luckily for the distributors
their locale's laws make this type of violation unenforceable.