Forum .LRN Q&A: Re: .LRN Consortium - Yet Another Governance Discussion

Collapse
9: Re: .LRN Consortium - Yet Another Governance Discussion (response to 1)
Posted by Samir Joshi on 10/05/03 02:35 AM
Yes, the dotLRN  “source code license” has no choice but to be GPL because of viral effect of OpenACS being GPL. However, copyright holder (MIT/Sloan in most cases - we did porting for some modules to Postgres and marked them copyright Symphinity - I would like to make it copyright OpenACS or FSF or whatever the consensus emerges) can release source-code under new license terms including commercial one. So ownership of copyright for source code is important in determining continued spirit and degree of freedom in future.

But '.LRN' logo and the website is a different beast - and its ownership is so far not clear - It is all about ownership of the ‘brand’.

BTW, Carl, for how long are you in Cambridge - I am here too. Is a little .LRN / OpenACS social possible? I think  OpenACS Cambridge social is  overdue... Tali / Dave, you hear ?

-Samir

Collapse
12: Re: .LRN Consortium - Yet Another Governance Discussion (response to 9)
Posted by Alfred Essa on 10/05/03 05:26 AM
We can host the social at Sloan.
Collapse
13: Re: .LRN Consortium - Yet Another Governance Discussion (response to 9)
Posted by Alfred Essa on 10/05/03 05:32 AM
  1. .LRN license is clearly GPL.
  2. .LRN copyright should be same copyright OpenACS community decides it wants to use to distribute OpenACS (e.g. OpenACS, FSF).
  3. .LRN logos, content on web site, marketing materials should be "open" and available for everyone to use and distribute similar to GPL (via creative commons license)