And that was before the Blender foundation got 10 million euro or whatever from animation companies! Who has a stake to lose? Disney owns some animations studios and software, I suppose? If they launch an attack of Ton, "the mouse sends his regards", then I will get worried about a dirty campaign against Blender, but not right now.bernd wrote: ↑Mon Jan 06, 2020 11:14 am it is exactly what ton from Blender said too. https://forum.freecadweb.org/viewtopic. ... 10#p196438 (end of first post from Yorik)
Copyright holders
Forum rules
Be nice to others! Read the FreeCAD code of conduct!
Be nice to others! Read the FreeCAD code of conduct!
Re: Copyright holders
Always add the important information to your posts if you need help. Also see Tutorials and Video tutorials.
To support the documentation effort, and code development, your donation is appreciated: liberapay.com/FreeCAD.
To support the documentation effort, and code development, your donation is appreciated: liberapay.com/FreeCAD.
Re: Copyright holders
I'm not concerned about what they should be worried about, but about what we should be worried about. I don't call this "paranoia" but "precaution". Being an engineer, Murphy's law is my friend.
So you propose to wait until it's too late ?
Re: Copyright holders
If i understand the dilemma some have correctly i guess best to create a PR and add "and others" to the mentioned line.
Re: Copyright holders
Pull request #2886: Increment year in copyright notice
Always add the important information to your posts if you need help. Also see Tutorials and Video tutorials.
To support the documentation effort, and code development, your donation is appreciated: liberapay.com/FreeCAD.
To support the documentation effort, and code development, your donation is appreciated: liberapay.com/FreeCAD.
Re: Copyright holders
Hum, just wondering on why making a PR that didn't resolve the debate in this thread made all that much sense? Just create a proper PR and lets move on.
Re: Copyright holders
I am not sure I can agree with this discussion, while I am not a lawyer and may not correctly understand some of the legal aspects of this I don't really see that the copyright in the about is wrong the way it is. As it was said before, every contribution (code, graphics,...) has, and should have, listed its author/s, all the authors that contribute to the project agree to contribute under a common (or at least a compatible) license so that the project can be developed and distributed with hopefully no or at least as little legal issues as possible.
The authors in the about however I see as the authors of the "original" idea and the "FreeCAD" project in general, so to say the "fathers" of the project. So while a trademark is again in the proper legal definitions something different to the copyright and authorship, I see this almost a bit like that they are the holders of the "FreeCAD" trademark (at lest morally if not legally). In other words, if someone would chose to fork the project and start developing it under a different name, they could change the copyright in the about to their own authorship, but they could not go and change the authorship of anything else, the existing code, graphics,... Well in general they could, but that would then indeed be wrong (both morally and legally). And following this logic I see it also as wrong to change the about copyright in the way as discussed here. I guess I can say that I see it as stealing this authorship of the original idea (also name, overall software architecture,...) of the project from them, and in regard to this I don't see it as relevant how much actual code (or other similar things) one has contributed to the project, even if they would have contributed zero (but of course they have a lot).
So personally I like to give respect to the history of the project and like to give the respect to the people that have started the project and contributed a lot to it, even if they are no longer active now. This is not saying that I am absolutely not agreeing with a change to "developed by the community", but this should IMO be their decision, not ours. On the other hand, I am also perfectly happy with the way it is, if that is their decision.
The authors in the about however I see as the authors of the "original" idea and the "FreeCAD" project in general, so to say the "fathers" of the project. So while a trademark is again in the proper legal definitions something different to the copyright and authorship, I see this almost a bit like that they are the holders of the "FreeCAD" trademark (at lest morally if not legally). In other words, if someone would chose to fork the project and start developing it under a different name, they could change the copyright in the about to their own authorship, but they could not go and change the authorship of anything else, the existing code, graphics,... Well in general they could, but that would then indeed be wrong (both morally and legally). And following this logic I see it also as wrong to change the about copyright in the way as discussed here. I guess I can say that I see it as stealing this authorship of the original idea (also name, overall software architecture,...) of the project from them, and in regard to this I don't see it as relevant how much actual code (or other similar things) one has contributed to the project, even if they would have contributed zero (but of course they have a lot).
So personally I like to give respect to the history of the project and like to give the respect to the people that have started the project and contributed a lot to it, even if they are no longer active now. This is not saying that I am absolutely not agreeing with a change to "developed by the community", but this should IMO be their decision, not ours. On the other hand, I am also perfectly happy with the way it is, if that is their decision.
Re: Copyright holders
It always makes sense to encourage new contributors, and such pull requests are ideal for that. There was a prior discussion, sensible solution was reached and somebody can now step up and create a PR. This is the way to do it and we should therefore encourage that. Discuss, reasonably agree and act after. Instead of for example measure ego, oppose and do nothing.
Re: Copyright holders
I agree but... That's a brilliant non-answer to the question.triplus wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 10:56 pm It always makes sense to encourage new contributors, and such pull requests are ideal for that. There was a prior discussion, sensible solution was reached and somebody can now step up and create a PR. This is the way to do it and we should therefore encourage that. Discuss, reasonably agree and act after. Instead of for example measure ego, oppose and do nothing.
