[Zope-dev] Re: [DISCUSS] Committer agreement not even handed and threadening

[Paul Everitt]

Dieter Maurer wrote:

> Paul Everitt writes:
>      <http://dev.zope.org/CVS/Contributor.pdf>
>=20
> The "Committer Agreement" does not seem to be even handed:
>=20
>    The committer transfers rights immediately and indefinitely
>    to Zope Corporation (the contributions become a gift to
>    Zope Corporation).


This is an inaccurate representation.  Transfer means you lose the=20
rights and we gain the rights.  Under joint ownership, both have rights.=20
  I think this point was abundantly clear, so I'm surprised to see you=20
portray this as a gift.

>    The agreement states explicitly that no rights are transfered
>    to the committer.


Because they never lost any rights.


>    This is not a problem in itself. However....
>=20
>       My intention to contribute would be to strengthen
>       the Open Source Movement. A statement that
>       the supported code base (Zope) will remain open source
>       and that committers will be able to use it (indefinitely)
>       under terms comparable to the current ZPL would
>       help to let the agreement to appear more balanced....


I don't think it's really feasible to 100% guarantee things in the=20
future.  Rather, the agreement states that current code, and any=20
contribution, will be available under the ZPL.  Nothing can be=20
retracted.  If someone comes along and gives us one trillion dollars to=20
stop releasing our work as open source, two things would happen:

1) First, we'd take the money. :^)

2) Second, all the existing code has to remain available under the ZPL.=20
  We just wouldn't do _new_ things under a ZPL.


This is part of the safety of joint ownership.  If you don't like what=20
we do in the future, you still have rights on your contribution.


> The "Commitrer Agreement" is quite threadening:
>=20
>    A committer takes over a considerable risk (complete warranty
>    and indemnification with respect to intellectual rights infringement=
).


Yes.  You can't make the risk disappear.  Someone has to bear the risk.=20
  It makes zero sense for ZC to bear the risk of what goes on in someone=20
else's brain.  Even in the scenario of carelessness, a case will have to=20
be made regarding what you knew and when you knew it.


>    The risk is far higher than that of a (german) employee.
>    German employment law recognizes that
>=20
>      *  all people make (sometimes) errors
>      *  coping with isolated errors is far easier for
>         a larger community (the big employer) than
> 	a single individual.
>=20
>    Therefore, it uses the term "Fahrl=E4ssigkeit" (carelessness).
>    An employee has to take all care to not make errors during
>    his work. If something bad happens due to slight
>    carelessness (leicht fahrl=E4ssig), then this is
>    a general risk which has to be taken by the employer.
>    If serious carelessness (grob fahrl=E4ssig) was the cause,
>    then the employee has to take the consequences for himself.

 >

>    We should have something similar for the committer agreement
>    (not restricted to intellectual property rights!).

 >

>    Maybe something like an insurance for slight carelessness
>    cases...


Unfortunately we'd have to be the insurer. :^(


>    Otherwise, commiting anything might easily ruin an individual.


Instead, you'd prefer that it ruin ZC?  Or are you asserting that=20
somehow we could make it so that nobody would be held accountable?


>    Especially with the strange US Patent Laws (where almost
>    everything (such as presenting information in a popup window
>    or integrating a Web Frontend with a baking oven) can
>    be patented) and incredibly high damages amounts
>    (5 billion for a smoker who got cancer) assigned in US courts.


Unfortunately that's the jurisdiction in which we operate.


--Paul