[Development] qt-jambi-interest at qt.nokia.com

[Darryl Miles]

Thiago Macieira wrote:
>>
>> So there is an awareness of what the Qt Jambi project is to both parties
>> and how the Qt Jambi project operates.  For example contributions have
>> not been governed by any CLA for some time.
>
> All contributions through the Qt Project infrastructure go through the Qt CLA.
> What are you asking for?

I am not asking for anything right now, I was merely outlining the 
nature of the issues that I would be trying to raise with the Qt Project 
legal department but also making Qt Project aware of the situation so 
that their legal team can "ok" matters that should be aired.

There is no objection (at this time) with Qt CLA.  It does need to be 
evaluated from the view point of any future plan involving it.  This 
evaluation has not occurred yet as there isn't an agreement or consensus 
to move closer to Qt Project; just to simply eject the Qt Jambi project 
from the hole that finds itself in.

>   a) to disable the CLA for Jambi repositories in qt-project.org?

This is not currently on any agenda I am aware of, however an evaluation 
of the Qt CLA still needs to be made.  I am not expecting any objections 
so we can work on the presumption all is good and talk about what 
happens next.

>   b) to figure out how to import the source code (which is not under the CLA)
> into the Qt Project?

For sure this is something to be raised, understood and worked through 
(and also exactly the point I raise in my previous email).


>> There is the aspect that Nokia still owns and retain the qtjambi.org
>> domain name and it does not seem to have been part of any asset transfer
>> this causes a problem in the very naming of the project as Java naming
>> is largely based on a namespace model tied back to DNS.
>> So the subject of renaming the project to side-step this issue has come
>> up and there does not seem to be any major objection to a rename from
>> those folks involved in the day-to-day active management of the Qt Jambi
>> project.
>
> Understood, but there's nothing I can do about this. If you want Digia to
> obtain the rights to the Qt Jambi domain and other assets, you need to contact
> Digia.
>
> If the Qt Jambi people are ok with a project rename, we don't have to do that.

I do understand that maybe the case (that there is nothing anyone at Qt 
Project or Digia can do) but it is good to have such a final response 
back.  Partly so it can be written into the history of the project why a 
choice to rename was made.

I think all of the other matters can be worked through except for the 
domain name issue and if that has to be changed (by renaming the 
project) then all the other other issues become moot.

I can not think why Nokia would still want to keep it, so maybe simply 
it was never asked/requested to be transferred, so maybe as part of me 
making contact with Qt Project legal team.  Someone can at least ask the 
question at Nokia with the right people who could resolve the matter, so 
far I feel like we've always been talking to the wrong people.  Maybe I 
should speak with Digia sales director and convince them of all the 
money they might lose hehe.

I would think it is in everyone's future interest to obtain it, from my 
point of view ideally to have Qt Project Hosting Foundation be the new 
owner.  Then some agreement in place to re-delegate it as necessary.




>> There is a pending/schedule change to the Copyright plates to better
>> explain and describe the nature of the project as being a derivative and
>> fork of the original Trolltech work that has selected to retain GPL/LGPL
>> in source code and publish LGPL only binaries.
>
> The only reason when a Copyright header is changed is when copyright itself
> transferred hands. That's what happened to the Qt source code that was
> copyrighted by Nokia: it was transferred legally to Digia.
>
> If the Jambi source code was transferred to Digia, then the Copyright headers
> should be changed. But given that the domain name was not transferred, it's
> most likely that the source code was not either. If that's the case, then the
> copyright remains with Nokia and you should not change that.
>
> Note that it's entirely possible that the language of the Nokia-Digia
> agreement did transfer the Jambi assets, but no one realised or took care of
> it.

This is not the nature of my comment.  At no point was I suggesting or 
intending to remove or replace the "Nokia" Copyright holder name.  That 
would obviously be a breach of Copyright and therefore licensing terms.


However... On the subject of replacing Noka with Digia in Copyright 
holder names (this is a matter you bring up but I did not), then should 
Digia have a rightful claim and desire to do this.  Digia would need 
their Legal team make contact and run through due diligence to prove the 
transfer of rights and then provide new instruction.

Again I can not see any objection to this exercise either, to me it is 
better to have an active non-encumbered ownership title on the work.  I 
think part of the problem with the Qt Jambi project has been the lack of 
interest (in order to follow other road map goals) during the Nokia era. 
  If there is any desire by Digia to do this it is better to be done 
sooner than later I think.

Should Digia have such rights I can certainly think of plenty of ways 
Digia can monetize this position.  As the Java ecosystem still does not 
look to have a useful cross-desktop-platform GUI there is hopes pinned 
on the JavaFX effort which is the official answer for the new graphic 
paradigm that QML addresses.  Then ignoring desktop people are now using 
Qt Jambi in embedded and mobile to good effect as the use of a Java VM 
is no longer a barrier.


Getting back to my comment... The original nature of my comment in 
relation to ensuring it is clarify the project is an LGPL/GPL dual 
licensed project.  This matter does not involve changing copyright 
holder or relicencing the work, since it is already licensed that way.



>> There is also the angle on continuing to use trolltech.com references
>> within the code base, I see there is a QTBUG about stopping doing that
>> in Qt, is there a legal basis this needs to be done ?
>
> The trolltech.com domain name did not transfer. Given the task and the domain,
> I would guess that the Qt Project no longer has any rights to it. I would
> recommend you rename the Java packages as soon as feasible.
>
> For D-Bus, we're using org.qtproject in the interface names (without the
> dash). The domain is registered to Lars for now. But if we do obtain
> qtjambi.org, I'd recommend using that instead.

This issue comes down to deciding on the project name going forwards. 
Yes we should (and wish to) correct the project namespace but only once 
we decide which name that is going to be.  We still want org.qtjambi if 
that is achievable, getting the DNS domain name is the deal breaker.

But I take from your comments there isn't a legal reason to change the 
name more a social reason.


>> Aspects of closing off and moving to emeritus status a number of dormant
>> gitorious Qt Jambi project admin accounts. This would also lead into the
>> cleaning up of the other gitorious matters.
>
> I do not understand what you want. Please be clear. This above probably has
> nothing to do with the legal contact though.

In short I guess I am just after a good practice and good housekeeping 
to take place.

There should not be "dormant" users with read-write committer status.  I 
use the word dormant to mean the user has not made any positive effort 
in respect of the repository/project and does not intend to make any 
positive effort in the future.  So by all means they can still be 
involved in the project but they do not require read-write committer 
status to do that.



The combined collection of these matters are currently hurting the Qt 
Jambi project the most.

It is the plan for 2013 to sort out documentation, publicity and 
blogging.  But that isn't going to happen until the project name issue 
is resolved.


Darryl