Exodus Down

Mon Jul 2 14:33:11 UTC 2001

David Howe wrote:

> 
> "Derek Balling" <dredd at megacity.org> wrote:
> > It couldn't be "taken over" by anyone else without cash changing
> > hands. It's a corporate asset of VA Linux Systems, Inc.  -- the Inc.
> > is the important part there.
> I thought SF was open source?
> In which case, only the physical hardware (the servers) could be considered
> an asset - the server software being Open Source and the data belonging to
> the users.......
> In any case, it is really the servers that makes SF a major resource -
> almost any project/source management system would have done...

Er, last I checked, making something open source didn't negate one's
ownership or rights to it. It simply means that you have granted certain
specific licenses or rights to others (depending on just which license
you use), generally including non-revokeable permissions to make use of,
redistribute, compile, and modify the code. It doesn't mean you own any
modifications, but it also doesn't mean anyone else owns your code; it
is still an asset.

More than one nominally open-source project has switched to a commercial
codebase by changing it's licensing terms for a new release, and allowing
people to do whatever they want (including forking a different branch)
from the last public code release under open license. One example familiar
to most of those here would be GateD.

So yes, the actual software that drives SF would probably be considered an
asset. It's just an asset with certain license grants for the current
version. As always, IANAL, consult professional counsel if you're
considering what this might mean to your business, etc etc.
-- 
***************************************************************************
Joel Baker                           System Administrator - lightbearer.com
lucifer at lightbearer.com              http://www.lightbearer.com/~lucifer