<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 23-Mar-19 8:15 AM, Mark Rousell
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:5C95575F.6000901@signal100.com">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
On 22/03/2019 21:31, Mihovil Stanić wrote:<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:b6dce195-21d8-e81a-2ad1-c29771cae0ee@miho.im"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=UTF-8">
<font size="-1"><font face="Liberation Sans">Why just don't
transfer ownership of add-on to another willing developer
under certain rules?<br>
Making this up, but something like this:<br>
</font></font>
<ul>
<li><font size="-1"><font face="Liberation Sans">add-on must
have open source licence</font></font></li>
<li><font size="-1"><font face="Liberation Sans">original
developer is MIA for lets say more then 6 months</font></font></li>
<li><font size="-1"><font face="Liberation Sans">ATO/ATN staff
tried to contact original developer at least 3 time in
period of 1 month<br>
</font></font></li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<br>
This approach would also require a fourth prerequisite: That the
original developer would need to sign up to these terms at the
outset (as a condition for hosting their addon on ATN).<br>
<br>
Will developers be willing to sign up to such a term, i.e. that
their project could be 'taken away' from them? I would think not
for two reasons:</blockquote>
Option1. Agree to loosing control if you abandon it.<br>
<br>
Option 2. We will delete it from server if option1 is not selected
and there is no version for the current release.<br>
</body>
</html>