| | <<<Back 1 day (to 2018/01/09) | 20180110 |
| deekej | Hello chrisl! I've just received a reply from our legal department and unfortunately I was told that I can't sign the legal agreement with Artifex. :-/ | 17:44.37 |
| | I don't know if this can prove to be problematic in the future somehow. | 17:45.40 |
| | But for what it's worth, Red Hat has its own Patent promise (https://www.redhat.com/en/about/patent-promise) and our Upstream's first rule. We would be the last ones you could expect to create any law/patent/copyright disputes against Artifex... :) | 17:46.58 |
| | I would like to hope that Ghostscript being released under AGPLv3+ should be OK for me to still send you patches, if needed. :) | 17:48.49 |
| chrisl | deekej: It's going to be a problem for anything non-trivial | 17:57.33 |
| deekej | chrisl: hmm, OK :-/ does Artifex have (by any chance) signed copyright agreement with GNU project / FSF? | 17:59.02 |
| | this is the last path I could try to pursue | 17:59.34 |
| chrisl | Not that I know of. The problem is, as we have a commercial aspect to Ghostscript, the copyright for any core changes must be assigned to Artifex to avoid potential future legal issues | 18:00.25 |
| deekej | chrisl: I realize that. :) The problem is (IIRC), I have some clause in my contract staying something similar in regards to Red Hat, so that's where it generates conflict I guess... :-/ | 18:02.08 |
| | I'll see if there's something else I could do about it. | 18:02.41 |
| chrisl | Well, I'm just an engineer, so I studiously avoid legal stuff - you'd have to communicate with "head office" to settle on something acceptable to both parties | 18:03.55 |
| Robin_Watts | deekej: All we can promise is that anything send to us that we use *will* be licensed under the GNU AGPL. The problem is we also need the rights to be able to license it under different terms too. | 18:27.24 |
| | Forward 1 day (to 2018/01/11)>>> | |
Log of #ghostscript at irc.freenode.net.