Tryton in copyrights
Albert Cervera i Areny
Hi everyone,
I've realized that "Tryton" is used as the copyright holder of part of the code and website's content. Is there a legal institution (foundation or whatever) behind this name? Or are there any plans for creating one?
IMHO it'd be great if Tryton had a Foundation backing up the community and ensuring its independence. That would guarantee (or would try to) that the project is not dependant on a single company the way that has happened (and is happening) in similar projects.
--
Albert Cervera i Areny
Tel: +34 93 553 18 03
skype: nan-oficina
Nicolas Évrard
>Hi everyone,
Hello,
>I've realized that "Tryton" is used as the copyright holder of part
>of the code and website's content. Is there a legal institution
>(foundation or whatever) behind this name? Or are there any plans for
>creating one?
For now there is no "Tryton Foundation" or anything like that.
It might be a good idea to create one, this process requires to
contact a lawyer to understand what are the requirements for such an
entity, the cost and all the legal stuff surrounding this.
The copyright is currently given in each module to their respective
author. The client demonstrate that very clearly (but I admit that the
server do not display the same diversity in the contributors).
I think that if we create a foundation, the copyright should go to the
foundation AND to the creator of the code (ie: I don't think a
contributor agreement is needed).
>IMHO it'd be great if Tryton had a Foundation backing up the
>community and ensuring its independence. That would guarantee (or
>would try to) that the project is not dependant on a single company
>the way that has happened (and is happening) in similar projects.
My main issue with this is that, for now, Tryton is still a small
project and the foundation is probably unnecessary.
But it is an idea worth keeping in the bakc of our head.
--
Nicolas Évrard
B2CK SPRL
rue de Rotterdam, 4
4000 Liège
Belgium
Tel: +32 472 54 46 59
E-mail/Jabber: nicolas...@b2ck.com
Website: http://www.b2ck.com/
Dr. Axel Braun
> I think that if we create a foundation, the copyright should go to the
> foundation AND to the creator of the code (ie: I don't think a
> contributor agreement is needed).
...but maybe you should think about registering Tryton as a brand
Cheers
Axel
--
Dr.-Ing. Axel K. Braun
Mobile: +49.173.7003.154
VoIP/Skype: axxite
PGP Fingerprint: CB03 964D 1CFA E87B AA63 53F3 1BD6 F53A EB48 EF22
Public Key available at http://www.axxite.com/axel....@gmx.de.asc
This mail was *not scanned* before sending.
It was sent from a secure Linux desktop.
Cédric Krier
> Am Freitag, 15. April 2011 schrieb Nicolas Évrard:
> > I think that if we create a foundation, the copyright should go to the
> > foundation AND to the creator of the code (ie: I don't think a
> > contributor agreement is needed).
>
> ...but maybe you should think about registering Tryton as a brand
It is already done by B2CK.
Of course if a foundation is created, we will give it.
--
Cédric Krier
B2CK SPRL
Rue de Rotterdam, 4
4000 Liège
Belgium
Tel: +32 472 54 46 59
Email/Jabber: cedric...@b2ck.com
Website: http://www.b2ck.com/
Daniel Baumann
> For now there is no "Tryton Foundation" or anything like that.
> It might be a good idea to create one, this process requires to
> contact a lawyer to understand what are the requirements for such an
> entity, the cost and all the legal stuff surrounding this.
i imagine you would not consider to base such a foundation in
switzerland/on swiss law, but just in case if you would, i'm qualified
to do it/help you with that for free.
--
Address: Daniel Baumann, Donnerbuehlweg 3, CH-3012 Bern
Email: daniel....@progress-technologies.net
Internet: http://people.progress-technologies.net/~daniel.baumann/
Sharoon Thomas
zodman
THat's like a foundation without be a foundation..
others proyects added too. Check http://sfconservancy.org/members/current/
Only a suggest. I think B2CK must take the direction about it.
--
Andres Vargas
www.zodman.com.mx
Paul J Stevens
Some very interesting projects there! And the directors are no noobs either.
+1
On 15-04-11 16:34, zodman wrote:
> On foresightlinux we are added to the Software Freedom Conservancy.
> THat's like a foundation without be a foundation..
>
> http://sfconservancy.org/
>
> others proyects added too. Check http://sfconservancy.org/members/current/
>
> Only a suggest. I think B2CK must take the direction about it.
>
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 8:41 AM, Sharoon Thomas
> <sharoo...@teagarden.in> wrote:
>> +1 for TSF (Tryton Software Foundation)
>> I agree with nicoe
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 9:36 AM, Daniel Baumann <dan...@debian.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 04/15/2011 02:37 PM, Nicolas �vrard wrote:
>>>> For now there is no "Tryton Foundation" or anything like that.
>>>> It might be a good idea to create one, this process requires to
>>>> contact a lawyer to understand what are the requirements for such an
>>>> entity, the cost and all the legal stuff surrounding this.
>>>
>>> i imagine you would not consider to base such a foundation in
>>> switzerland/on swiss law, but just in case if you would, i'm qualified
>>> to do it/help you with that for free.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Address: Daniel Baumann, Donnerbuehlweg 3, CH-3012 Bern
>>> Email: daniel....@progress-technologies.net
>>> Internet: http://people.progress-technologies.net/~daniel.baumann/
>>>
>>> --
>>> try...@googlegroups.com mailing list
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sharoon Thomas
>> Business Analyst & Open Source ERP Consultant
>> CEO @ http://openlabs.co.in
>>
>> --
>> try...@googlegroups.com mailing list
>>
>
>
>
--
________________________________________________________________
Paul Stevens paul at nfg.nl
NET FACILITIES GROUP GPG/PGP: 1024D/11F8CD31
The Netherlands________________________________http://www.nfg.nl
Nicolas Évrard
>THat's like a foundation without be a foundation..
>
>http://sfconservancy.org/
>
>others proyects added too. Check http://sfconservancy.org/members/current/
>
>Only a suggest. I think B2CK must take the direction about it.
In my opinion there are pros and cons to go with the sfconservancy
way:
On the pros side:
- existing structure
- knowledgeable staff
- assistance for fundraising, asset management, all the stuff we
would have to do anyway
On the cons side:
- Foundation in the USA: If there was ever a legal dispute to
settle I don't know if the USA is the better place to be. I've
heard the american bread of lawyer can be quite bitchy ;).
- Donations to a foundation in the USA are probably not
tax-deductible in Europe whereas donation in a EU-country (or
maybe even Swiss) are probably tax-deductible (this could be
significant for some people). But you can probably use the same
argument against a EU foundation when looking from India, Japan
or another country.
But I think the first question that needs an answer is the following:
Do we really need to create a foundation ?
As much as I can understand the benefits (donation, more security), I
do not have the feeling that people in the community have issues with
the way B2CK is handling the current situation. If so, please raise
your voice and speak up (and do not fear Cédric's might ;)).
And please do not misunderstand me, I think this is a good idea in
the long run, but *right now* I do not see the added value. But I
might be wrong, and I may have completely underestimated the number of
people willing to give money to a Tryton Software Foundation ;).
Another question is: if we create a foundation, should it have a clear
and unique leader (benevolent dictator or elected ?), a board of
selected community members (if so how do we select them), do we
want/need such a hierarchy ?
Just my 2¢.
Sharoon Thomas
--
try...@googlegroups.com mailing list
Albert Cervera i Areny
A Dissabte, 16 d'abril de 2011 00:06:08, Nicolas �vrard va escriure:
> * zodman [2011-04-15 16:34 +0200]:
> >On foresightlinux we are added to the Software Freedom Conservancy.
> >THat's like a foundation without be a foundation..
> >
> >
> >others proyects added too. Check http://sfconservancy.org/members/current/
> >
> >Only a suggest. I think B2CK must take the direction about it.
>
> In my opinion there are pros and cons to go with the sfconservancy
> way:
>
> On the pros side:
>
> - existing structure
> - knowledgeable staff
> - assistance for fundraising, asset management, all the stuff we
> would have to do anyway
>
> On the cons side:
>
> - Foundation in the USA: If there was ever a legal dispute to
> settle I don't know if the USA is the better place to be. I've
> heard the american bread of lawyer can be quite bitchy ;).
> - Donations to a foundation in the USA are probably not
> tax-deductible in Europe whereas donation in a EU-country (or
> maybe even Swiss) are probably tax-deductible (this could be
> significant for some people). But you can probably use the same
> argument against a EU foundation when looking from India, Japan
> or another country.
Although I didn't know of the exitance of Software Freedom Conservancy, and it is very interesting indeed, I personally think a TSF would be worth it because:
- Several companies are making money out of the software and thus can manage more money that projects such as Amarok or ArgoUML, for example.
- There will probably be european companies willing to give money to the Foundation as soon as it starts "doing things". Note that the Foundation could have the promotion of the product/project, and that will benefit everyone offering services around it.
- One of the good points of OpenERP is that some customers feel more confident if there is a "big company" behind the product. I think being able to show customers that there's a serious Foundation integrated by several companies ensuring the future of their ERP instead of a venture capital investment, is even a better argument.
> But I think the first question that needs an answer is the following:
> Do we really need to create a foundation ?
>
> As much as I can understand the benefits (donation, more security), I
> do not have the feeling that people in the community have issues with
> the way B2CK is handling the current situation. If so, please raise
> your voice and speak up (and do not fear C�dric's might ;)).
We're completely new in the community. And although I haven't seen much yet, I think you're doing a great job. At the same time, I believe this kind of decisions are better taken when things are calm, specially because I know there are other companies like us that would see this move as an ensurance for the future of the product and their investement if they decide to go the Tryton way. Note that we're starting to consider Tryton and ensuring the future of the project is the most important thing for us at the moment.
I'm pretty sure we're not alone. (We have already seen interest in this matter from companies not currently working with Tryton.)
> And please do not misunderstand me, I think this is a good idea in
> the long run, but *right now* I do not see the added value. But I
> might be wrong, and I may have completely underestimated the number of
> people willing to give money to a Tryton Software Foundation ;).
>
> Another question is: if we create a foundation, should it have a clear
> and unique leader (benevolent dictator or elected ?), a board of
> selected community members (if so how do we select them), do we
> want/need such a hierarchy ?
IMHO that the kind of things that should be discussed. First of all let me say that neither I (nor NaN�tic) do intend to be accepted into such a Foundation before having made contributions to the project, although we're willing to work on its creation if our help is welcomed.
I think that somehow Foundation hierarchy doesn't necessarily much project's hierarchy. IMHO the project should remain as is because that's currently working and it may evolve in the future if the project grows. At the same time trying to make foundation's and project's leadership match puts a lot of work to the same people. Also, in many cases project's leaders will not want to do the work that leading the Foundation would need, so probably an election mechanism would be the best thing to have.I think the foundation could have a board of directors and there should probably be some rules to decide how new members are accepted.
For example, in KDE e.v [1] they have the rule that in order for a new member to be accepted it be proposed by three existing members, and voted by the whole of them [2]. I think (maybe I'm wrong here) that one couldn't miss two consecutive annual meetings of the members of the foundation.
Regarding Foundation's roles, I mostly agree with Sharoon Thomas ideas. I would also add promoting the product including the creation of flyers of even paying for google ads.
It may also be interesting that it gave due credit to everyone. A foundation could encourage both supporting [1] and contributing members. Supporting ones simply pay money so the foundation can do its job but do *not* have more power in the decision making process. At the same time, with each release, the Foundation can publish a small set of statistics showing who has contributed what. For example: "For this release B2CK has contributed 2000 lines of code and 400 words in documentation, etc"
[2] http://ev.kde.org/getinvolved/members.php
[3] http://ev.kde.org/supporting-members.php
> Just my 2�.
+ my 2� that's 4� already ;-)
Albert Cervera i Areny
A Dissabte, 16 d'abril de 2011 01:39:11, Albert Cervera i Areny va escriure:
> For example, in KDE e.v [1] they have the rule that in order for a new
> member to be accepted it be proposed by three existing members, and voted
> by the whole of them [2]. I think (maybe I'm wrong here) that one couldn't
> miss two consecutive annual meetings of the members of the foundation.
The attending the meetings part is true. For more information see "active members" here:
Nicolas Évrard
>Hi Nicolas,
Hello,
>First of all - We have no problem with B2CK's leadership in the
>project and we are grateful for the effort you guys put in to make
>tryton better everyday. You guys make it happen and there is no
>question about how B2CK handles the project.
Well, it is better to be your own boss than to work for someone, and
if you can create good software and make it work as a side effect then
everyone is happy !
>However, as Albert who started this thread pointed out having a
>foundation behind the project sets a big difference in how the
>project is seen and approached by people (including developers,
>promoters and users). It gives a sense of security and assurance from
>attempts of hijacks for several people. It's infact a common
>question and concern amongst many developers I talk to in the OpenERP
>community. An example of this can be seen on openerphell.com[1] which
>mentions "was truly opensource - then came the money."
Well I am pretty sure that openerphell is not the best candidate to
represent the openerp community. But I also know that there are
concerns in the openerp community of the whole project being too
"corporate". So I think that dispelling those kind of doubts is of
first importance.
>So I feel that a foundation might bring more legitimacy and trust to
>the project. A common concern of our customers is also similar - I
>feel it will be more assuring for them to see a not-for profit
>foundation behind the core software that a group of
>companies/individuals however capable they are.
This is a strange reaction. The foundation will never ever have any
contract with customers (because it will be a non-profit association)
so if I was a customer I would be more inclined to trust a company
(that I can buy stuff from and sue if necessary) than a foundation
with which I have no relation.
But I understand that having the backing of a foundation could be seen
as a selling point.
>* When does tryton need to be a foundation ?
>
> I am not sure.
Me neither.
>* Roles of the foundation ?
>
> More than attracting investment, I think the foundation should have a
>mission similar to that of PSF [2] which is mostly around protecting the
>name, intellectual property, facilitate ongoing development, organise
>conferences and events etc. We certainly do lag behind in this. For example
>organising development sprints before major releases etc.
- Protecting the name
The tryton trademark will indeed be given to the TSF
- Intellectual property (this is the de facto name but it should no be
used)
I do think that we need a contributor agreement so that someone can
not prevent you from using their code if they previously gave it
away (the moral right of the author are weaker when you're talking
of software but they are still there and someone could prevent this
use of its code).
But this is a difficult issue : there is still a certain amount of
tinyerp's code. And people would have to sign a form like this
one[1] before contributing ... And this kind of entry barrier to
contributing is clearly something I don't like.
Moreover, the change of licence authorised in the PSF form is
something that I don't want to see in Tryton. My code is GPLv3+ and
I don't want it to become BSD / AL / Whatever.
[1]: http://www.python.org/psf/contrib/contrib-form-python/
>* Leadership/Hierarchy
>
> Every organisation needs a hierarchy and so would the Tryton Software
>Foundation :) Personally I think we should try to follow PSF and how its
>organised as most people seem to be happy with PSF. And in that case we
>would need our BDFL and we all know it is Cedric.
I really don't like to whole idea of a BDFL. The FL part irritates me
and the D part irritates me even more.
Ok Cédric has the technical expertise to be the BDFL, but we're not
dealing with technical issues here and when it comes to the point of
leading a community I prefer the debian way of doing things (Daniel
you'll correct me if I say stupid things).
- A technical committee to settle technical disputes
- A project leader which is the representative of the debian
project is elected for one year (ok elections are stupid with
such a small community and such a small number of committers).
He gives his vision to the project but I don't have the
impression he is perceived as more important than any other DD.
But in fact, I don't think Tryton needs all this hierarchy. The
current size of the project do not require such a burden and if the
project grows then we will have time to reach a consensus on this
point.
Nicolas Évrard
And of course I forgot half the stuff I wanted to add by jumping here
and there in my email ...
>>First of all - We have no problem with B2CK's leadership in the
>>project and we are grateful for the effort you guys put in to make
>>tryton better everyday. You guys make it happen and there is no
>>question about how B2CK handles the project.
>
>Well, it is better to be your own boss than to work for someone, and
>if you can create good software and make it work as a side effect
>then everyone is happy !
And that's why I created openhex and joined b2ck.
>>* Roles of the foundation ?
>>
>> More than attracting investment, I think the foundation should have a
>>mission similar to that of PSF [2] which is mostly around protecting the
>>name, intellectual property, facilitate ongoing development, organise
>>conferences and events etc. We certainly do lag behind in this. For example
>>organising development sprints before major releases etc.
>
>- Protecting the name
> The tryton trademark will indeed be given to the TSF
>
>- Intellectual property (this is the de facto name but it should no be
> used)
>
> I do think that we need a contributor agreement so that someone can
> not prevent you from using their code if they previously gave it
> away (the moral right of the author are weaker when you're talking
> of software but they are still there and someone could prevent this
> use of its code).
>
> But this is a difficult issue : there is still a certain amount of
> tinyerp's code. And people would have to sign a form like this
> one[1] before contributing ... And this kind of entry barrier to
> contributing is clearly something I don't like.
>
> Moreover, the change of licence authorised in the PSF form is
> something that I don't want to see in Tryton. My code is GPLv3+ and
> I don't want it to become BSD / AL / Whatever.
>
>[1]: http://www.python.org/psf/contrib/contrib-form-python/
- Facilitate ongoing development
I think that the current server setup could be transferred as-is to
a future foundation because I really happy with the whole
mercurial+rietveld+roundup combo.
The main point where development (for me translation and
documenation is at some point as important than code even tough it
is a real pain to write this kind of stuff) could be rendered more
easy is probably on the documentation side. I do think some people
are displeased by tryton only because we are not enough newbie
friendly (but do we want to go that way ?).
- Organise conference
This is something we are thinking about. But the project is still in
limbo.
But I agree that creating events (or rather participating in events)
might create future involvement in the project.
- Organise development sprint
For me a sprint must be a time so that developers can gather
together, discuss stuff and engage in coding session. So this will
require people to cross ocean (or at least boundaries) and I am
afraid that the current size of the community is too small for such
events.
Sharoon Thomas
* Nicolas Évrard [2011-04-16 02:29 +0200]:And of course I forgot half the stuff I wanted to add by jumping here* Sharoon Thomas [2011-04-16 00:56 +0200]:
and there in my email ...And that's why I created openhex and joined b2ck.
First of all - We have no problem with B2CK's leadership in the
project and we are grateful for the effort you guys put in to make
tryton better everyday. You guys make it happen and there is no
question about how B2CK handles the project.
Well, it is better to be your own boss than to work for someone, and
if you can create good software and make it work as a side effect
then everyone is happy !
* Roles of the foundation ?
More than attracting investment, I think the foundation should have a
mission similar to that of PSF [2] which is mostly around protecting the
name, intellectual property, facilitate ongoing development, organise
conferences and events etc. We certainly do lag behind in this. For example
organising development sprints before major releases etc.
- Protecting the name
The tryton trademark will indeed be given to the TSF
- Intellectual property (this is the de facto name but it should no be
used)
I do think that we need a contributor agreement so that someone can
not prevent you from using their code if they previously gave it
away (the moral right of the author are weaker when you're talking
of software but they are still there and someone could prevent this
use of its code).
But this is a difficult issue : there is still a certain amount of
tinyerp's code. And people would have to sign a form like this
one[1] before contributing ... And this kind of entry barrier to
contributing is clearly something I don't like.
- Facilitate ongoing development
Moreover, the change of licence authorised in the PSF form is
something that I don't want to see in Tryton. My code is GPLv3+ and
I don't want it to become BSD / AL / Whatever.
[1]: http://www.python.org/psf/contrib/contrib-form-python/
I think that the current server setup could be transferred as-is to
a future foundation because I really happy with the whole
mercurial+rietveld+roundup combo.
The main point where development (for me translation and
documenation is at some point as important than code even tough it
is a real pain to write this kind of stuff) could be rendered more
easy is probably on the documentation side. I do think some people
are displeased by tryton only because we are not enough newbie
friendly (but do we want to go that way ?).
- Organise conference
This is something we are thinking about. But the project is still in
limbo.
But I agree that creating events (or rather participating in events)
might create future involvement in the project.
- Organise development sprint
For me a sprint must be a time so that developers can gather
together, discuss stuff and engage in coding session. So this will
require people to cross ocean (or at least boundaries) and I am
afraid that the current size of the community is too small for such
events.
--
Nicolas Évrard
B2CK SPRL
rue de Rotterdam, 4
4000 Liège
Belgium
Tel: +32 472 54 46 59
E-mail/Jabber: nicolas...@b2ck.com
Website: http://www.b2ck.com/
[1] http://twitter.com/#!/mitsuhiko/status/47029598667542528
Luis Falcon
It was great to meet you and Nicolas last week in Luxembourg.
I have put MEDICAL (http://medical.sf.net) under the umbrella of GNU
Solidario, the Non-profit, Non-Govermental Organization I created a
years ago.
The reason I created GNU Solidario was to deliver education and health
globally, using Free Software (we also do other non-profit activities,
but this is the main one).
I believe that having these types of systems under an Foundation sends
a very positive message to the community.
Cheers
Luis
> Website:http://www.b2ck.com/
>
> application_pgp-signature_part
> < 1 KBVerDescargar
Albert Cervera i Areny
I would like to start a wiki page in order to write down everybody's opinion on how the Foundation should be organized. I'd also like to share there information on each country's requirements. IMHO it'd be best if it was Belgium because I think the most fair thing to do is that C嚙範ric and others in b2crk become the first members and make it grow themselves, but at the same time this would mean that they would have to do all the hard work of starting such a foundation. Opinions?
As I said, I (and NaN嚙緣ic's team) offer to help, or even do all the legal process. Daniel Baumann also offered and said he'd be qualified to do that, and that would also be just great if he has the knowledge (we haven't got a clue ATM).
If you want me to work on taking those notes, I'd like to have write access to the wiki [1] or maybe I better do that somewhere else?
[1] http://code.google.com/p/tryton/wiki/Ideas
A Dissabte, 16 d'abril de 2011 03:36:32, Sharoon Thomas va escriure:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 8:55 PM, Nicolas 嚙緞rard <nicolas...@b2ck.com>wrote:
> > * Nicolas 嚙緞rard [2011-04-16 02:29 +0200]:
> > Nicolas 嚙緞rard
> >
> > B2CK SPRL
> > rue de Rotterdam, 4
> > 4000 Li嚙篇e
> > Belgium
> > Tel: +32 472 54 46 59
> > E-mail/Jabber: nicolas...@b2ck.com
> > Website: http://www.b2ck.com/
> >
> > --
> > try...@googlegroups.com mailing list
>
> [1] http://twitter.com/#!/mitsuhiko/status/47029598667542528
Cédric Krier
> I would like to start a wiki page in order to write down everybody's opinion
> on how the Foundation should be organized. I'd also like to share there
> information on each country's requirements. IMHO it'd be best if it was
> time this would mean that they would have to do all the hard work of starting
> such a foundation. Opinions?
>
> that would also be just great if he has the knowledge (we haven't got a clue
> ATM).
>
> If you want me to work on taking those notes, I'd like to have write access to
> the wiki [1] or maybe I better do that somewhere else?
Good idea. You can create a new page for that (under blueprint ?).
Send me your google account in private to give you write access.
--
Cédric Krier
B2CK SPRL
Rue de Rotterdam, 4
4000 Liège
Belgium
Tel: +32 472 54 46 59
Cédric Krier
> On 04/15/2011 02:37 PM, Nicolas Évrard wrote:
> > For now there is no "Tryton Foundation" or anything like that.
> > It might be a good idea to create one, this process requires to
> > contact a lawyer to understand what are the requirements for such an
> > entity, the cost and all the legal stuff surrounding this.
>
> i imagine you would not consider to base such a foundation in
> switzerland/on swiss law, but just in case if you would, i'm qualified
> to do it/help you with that for free.
What will be the advantge of switzerland for such fondation?
--
Cédric Krier
B2CK SPRL
Rue de Rotterdam, 4
4000 Liège
Belgium
Tel: +32 472 54 46 59
Albert Cervera i Areny
A Diumenge, 17 d'abril de 2011 12:18:33, C�dric Krier va escriure:
> On 17/04/11 12:11 +0200, Albert Cervera i Areny wrote:
> > I would like to start a wiki page in order to write down everybody's
> > opinion on how the Foundation should be organized. I'd also like to
> > share there information on each country's requirements. IMHO it'd be
> > best if it was Belgium because I think the most fair thing to do is that
> > C�dric and others in b2crk become the first members and make it grow
> > themselves, but at the same time this would mean that they would have to
> > do all the hard work of starting such a foundation. Opinions?
> >
> > As I said, I (and NaN�tic's team) offer to help, or even do all the legal
> > process. Daniel Baumann also offered and said he'd be qualified to do
> > that, and that would also be just great if he has the knowledge (we
> > haven't got a clue ATM).
> >
> > If you want me to work on taking those notes, I'd like to have write
> > access to the wiki [1] or maybe I better do that somewhere else?
>
> Good idea. You can create a new page for that (under blueprint ?).
>
> Send me your google account in private to give you write access.
I already created the page [1]. I just realized you proposed to add it under blueprints. I thought adding this to Organization of the Project was the appropriate place, but feel free to change its location.
Daniel if you have a good knowledge of the advantages/disadvantages of basing the Foundation in Switzerland you may want to add it to the "Where" section. We're going to ask for information on the requirements for creating it in Spain (although it rings a bell that there big differences between creating it in Catalonia -where we are located- and other regions).
Have yet to fill in the Organization notes. Will collect ideas from Sharoon Thomas and Nicolas conversation.
Cédric Krier
> A Diumenge, 17 d'abril de 2011 12:18:33, Cédric Krier va escriure:
> > On 17/04/11 12:11 +0200, Albert Cervera i Areny wrote:
> > > I would like to start a wiki page in order to write down everybody's
> > > opinion on how the Foundation should be organized. I'd also like to
> > > share there information on each country's requirements. IMHO it'd be
> > > best if it was Belgium because I think the most fair thing to do is that
> > > themselves, but at the same time this would mean that they would have to
> > > do all the hard work of starting such a foundation. Opinions?
> > >
> > > As I said, I (and NaN·tic's team) offer to help, or even do all the legal
> > > process. Daniel Baumann also offered and said he'd be qualified to do
> > > that, and that would also be just great if he has the knowledge (we
> > > haven't got a clue ATM).
> > >
> > > If you want me to work on taking those notes, I'd like to have write
> > > access to the wiki [1] or maybe I better do that somewhere else?
> >
> > Good idea. You can create a new page for that (under blueprint ?).
> >
> > Send me your google account in private to give you write access.
>
> I already created the page [1]. I just realized you proposed to add it under
> blueprints. I thought adding this to Organization of the Project was the
> appropriate place, but feel free to change its location.
I don't understand this goal:
Hold copyright of the Tryton brand.
For me there is no copyright on brand. You can own the brand. Is what you
mean?
Albert Cervera i Areny
A Diumenge, 17 d'abril de 2011 22:28:51, C�dric Krier va escriure:
> I don't understand this goal:
>
> ����Hold copyright of the Tryton brand.
>
> For me there is no copyright on brand. You can own the brand. Is what you
> mean?
Sorry. Just changed that to: "Hold the Tryton brand." (I'm not sure this is the right expression, please feel free to change it to proper English :-).