[Zope3-dev] Re: Can we provide a Zope3 Collective?

[Ken Manheimer]

Martijn Faassen <faassen at infrae.com> writes:

> Let me try to explain the impression someone might be getting:
> 
> zope.org is being run by the company called Zope corporation, that
> requires you to sign an agreement before checking in, signing over half
> your copyright to them.

I expect that the significance of signing over half the copyright is way
different than the impression people get from the sound of it.  In fact, i
strongly suspect the signficance may be the opposite, at least in part,
of the impression.

I have to start by saying that this is all based on my own uncertain
estimation of these things - it is a theory, not rigorous knowledge nor
zope corporation authority.  A theory i'd like to test against informed
understanding, so i'm putting it out there.

My take on the joint copyright is that it is protection, akin to interlock
switches which require two keys for activation.  The keys are controlled by
different people - so neither person, alone, can activate the switch.  With
joint copyright, neither party can *restrict* the copyright without
cooperation of the other party.  Ie, if one part reduces the rights granted
to users, the users need only appeal to the other party's terms.  The
parties would have to revoke the rights together.  Considering that the
license we're talking about is very liberal, neither party gains leverage
that prevents the other party from granting *more* usage rights - all the
usage rights are basically there.

Now, zope corp could arrange to conspire with a joint partner to clamp down
restrictions - but zc is in no better position to do so owning half the
copyright than they do owning none!  Owning half the copyright does not
seem anything like owning the half the mortgage on someones house, for
instance.

But that is the way it is *sounding* when people have been talking about it
here.  It sounds like zope corporation gets half of something they could
cash in on somewhere down the road, depriving everyone else of it.  I don't
see anything like that which zc could gain.  Instead, the thing that zc
gains is increased assurance *for the community* that the rights will not
be restricted.

This is similar to other assurances that people get in using the zope corp
repository.  Eg, the rigor of stating the code you're checking in is code
to which you have proper rights is a kind of indemnification, reducing the
chance that users will be suddenly deprived of access to code on which they
depend because it was improperly made available in the first place.

My take on joint copyright may be wrong.  If so, it's an honest mistake -
i'm not being promopted by nor speaking with any zope corp authority.  But
if i'm anywhere near accurate, i can abundantly see jim's frustration with
the zope repository being damned as being unneutral.  It feeds the
impression that zope corporation is getting an advantage beyond these
assurances - assurances which equally benefit everyone in the community.  I
can see calling it stringent, which means there are greater hurdles for
greater benefits, but biased (unneutral) would seem like a great
disservice.

(http://dev.zope.org/CVS/ContributorIntroduction has useful discussion of
joint copyright, for anyone who hasn't already read more about it.)

Ken Manheimer
klm at zope.com