Evolution Bounty Stirs GPL Concerns 214
Moochman writes "The recent Desktop Integration Bounty (funded by Novell) will surely please people who want Evolution to be part of GNOME. But the Ximian Evolution copyright assignment has stirred up concerns in the community about whether contributors will be able to maintain their Free Software mores. Essentially, contributors to Evolution must give Novell copyright over any code they submit; then Novell is allowed to include this code in a proprietary product. Is this a smart business move, or a violation of the GPL?" Since all contributions are only at the request of the contributing coder, and considering that the copyright assignment form says that "Ximian agrees to grant back to Developer, and does hereby grant, nonexclusive, royaltyfree and noncancelable rights to use the Works," and specifies that Novell/Ximian release the code under a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines (such as the GPL), it seems to protect the contributors rather well.
So..? (Score:5, Insightful)
How is this any different? Because they are also going to sell a proprietary version? The developers will sign the rights over to Ximian, so how is this any different from dual-licensing like MySQLs? I mean, Ximian will own the code..
Re:So..? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:So..? (Score:2)
Re:So..? (Score:3, Informative)
No, you can't. In fact the Evolution copyright assignment is an exact copy (with only the names of the organizations changed) of the GNU copyright assignment. The difference is that the FSF is a non-profit organization set up for the express purpose of protecting the freedom of software, while Novell is a company set up for the purpose of returning a profit to its shareholders, so people are more likely to see something sinister in the more loosely
Re:So..? (Score:3, Interesting)
From GNU page about the GPL [gnu.org]
Re:So..? (Score:3, Informative)
Irrelevant. The topic is not GPL'ed projects, but projects controlled by GNU. You are confused because the GPL is today more famous than GNU which spawned it.
If you want to get a patch included into an actual GNU project [gnu.org], such as emacs or gcc, you must assign copyright to GNU. Otherwise they'll reject your patch (you're always free to fork, of course, but then don't get the benefit high-profile placement)
Re:So..? (Score:4, Insightful)
A developer who writes code and releases it under the GPL and only under the GPL and wants it to remain that way would not be likely to assign the copyright to Novell.
If it were me, I would grant *them* a worldwide, perpetual, royalty-free license to use the code under the GPL. Maybe I would even grant them that license to use it in a proprietary program as well, as long as it was in the GPLed one too.
But sign over my copyright and then have *them* give *me* a perpetual royalty-free license to use my own code? Umm, I don't think so. Not unless I work for Novell developing Evolution code, in which case they already own it and don't have to give me any license at all.
And how can I use my 'works' afterwards? (Score:2, Insightful)
In other words: Novell will be the only one able to use _your_ code in a program where they get to decide the license. You can us
Re:And how can I use my 'works' afterwards? (Score:5, Informative)
the copyright assignment form, which clearly
states that Novell agrees to grant back to the
developer all the rights over the code that they
contributed.
So you can effectively do whatever you want with
your code (unless it is a derivative works, in
which case, you are subject to the GPL anyways).
Miguel.
Re:And how can I use my 'works' afterwards? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:And how can I use my 'works' afterwards? (Score:5, Informative)
Ximian came up with, since the very first launch
of Evolution.
People are just mixing two different things,
because both were discussed this week on the
list.
There is no change in policy, just someone who
freaked out this week because of Sun's rumours,
the freakout evolving into this.
Miguel.
Re:And how can I use my 'works' afterwards? (Score:2)
What do you think of that SUN thing. Seems like a weird match. Except of the GNOME and Linux sides of it. Otherwise they seem like they just compete with each other (core overlap) far too much for it to really work.
Re:So..? (Score:2)
All this is is Novell trying to institute an old-world, pre-GPL code-ownership model
I reckon that there are some people that will do this, but there are much better gigs. Some places will let you do contract work and GPL that work (if there's no competitive disadvantage) and give it away to others. In that case, you get paid well for the code *and* the world gets a GPL-licensed piece of software (not this DFSG-compliant-and-maybe-GP
Re:So..? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So..? (Score:2, Insightful)
That's slightly different (Score:5, Insightful)
This Evolution thing meanwhile you're being required to hand over the copyright so that Novell can turn around and sell it in a proprietary product. This is slightly different. Rather than being asked to hand over the copyright for the good of the community and users, you're being asked to hand over the copyright for the good of Novell.
This is actually exactly like MySQL and a lot of people do hesitate before contributing code to MySQL for exactly this same reason.
Re:That's slightly different (Score:3, Informative)
Bruce Perens explains this problem here [userlinux.com]
"Red Hat has already proposed an answer to this problem, but I think it's the wrong answer. Their Fedora project is obviously intended to look like Debian. But unlike Debian, Fedora is an extremely unequal partnership. "Fedora" is where the community developers are supposed to build Red Hat's product, while the certifications and vendor endorsements are held back for the high-priced "Red Hat Enterprise Linux" brand. This is especially obvious in recent certificatio
Re:That's slightly different (Score:3, Insightful)
So make your own derivative distro from Fedora like Enterprise Edition. Red Hat won't stop you, and hasn't stopped a number of people that has done exactly that. Red Hat is probably
Re:That's slightly different (Score:2)
I think that was the idea - while both ways are fine, Debian's is truer to idea of free/OSS.
Re:That's slightly different (Score:3, Insightful)
Why I disagree with Bruce (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why I disagree with Bruce (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Follow The Money (Score:3, Insightful)
no form of greed or self-interest (Score:3, Interesting)
RMS and the GPL are certainly driven by self-interest---interest in maximizing the volume of software available to them in source form. RMS doesn't care that you have access to his source. He wants access to yours.
Re:no form of greed or self-interest (Score:3, Informative)
RMS doesn't care that you have access to his source. He wants access to yours.
What he wants is that everybody should have access to the source. That includes him, but is not restricted to him. I'm not a big fan of RMS, but the way you describe his motives is a bit unfair.
A no issue. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:A no issue. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:A no issue. (Score:3, Funny)
If everything else fails, it shouldn't be a problem for a developer to get laid
off for his work.
Re:A no issue. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:A no issue. (Score:2)
Re:Crude and Unfunny (Score:2)
Come on...it was a joke. Don't be so !#%^ easily offended, get the stick out of your ass, and laugh, for shit's sake!
As a regular user of Evolution (Score:2, Insightful)
I think myself, like the majority of people that use software could give a flying fsck about the license some software is using.
Gnu / BSD / X11 / Sell Grandmother into slavery - I don't care.
Evolution is a perfectly acceptable replacement for Outlook, so long as it continues being like that i'll use it. If some better software comes along that runs on my PC i'll switch.
Re:As a regular user of Evolution (Score:2)
No Link Between GPL and Innovation (Score:5, Insightful)
In this particular case, the open source community is using a widely loathed proprietary program -- Outlook -- as both model and yardstick for one of it's premier offerings, Evolution. Ditto OpenOffice.
If the GPL does foster the creation of new and innovative applications, why has the community not already brought forth an email client and an office client that are so convincingly innovative, useful and attractive that people will happily abandon the Outlook/MSOffice paradigms in order to adopt them?
Granted, source availability does spread innovative ideas once they occur in the mind of a given developer. But, it seems clear that a developer working in a closed, proprietary environment can be just as innovative as one working in an free and open environment. Financial reward can, in fact, be a wonderful spur to creativity.
It could be argued, as well, that the availability of code works against innovation because developers often use existing code as a model rather than strike out into new territory.
The GPL and open source represent many good things, but they are no better or no worse at fostering creativity than the proprietary model.
Re:No Link Between GPL and Innovation (Score:2)
Outlook is by far the best email client ever. And I say this as a free software bigot who hasn't run Windows at home since 3.0 and is the only person at a company of thousands without a Windows workstation at my desk. Outlook is the only Windows program I use.
I started using it becasue I had no choice but to use Outlook to be able to use all of the Exchange features. I'm not sure if Evolution has
Re:No Link Between GPL and Innovation (Score:2)
However, are you arguing that the open source community can't do something better? That Outlook is, to all intents and purposes, the last email client?
Re:No Link Between GPL and Innovation (Score:2)
Why would the open source community loathe an application which is clearly the best in its space?
However, are you arguing that the open source community can't do something better? That Outlook is, to all intents and purposes, the last email client?
No, just that it is by far the best email client, therefore it is not widely loathed.
Re:No Link Between GPL and Innovation (Score:2)
Re:No Link Between GPL and Innovation (Score:2)
Re:No Link Between GPL and Innovation (Score:2)
Re:No Link Between GPL and Innovation (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a bit arrogant to argue that the only reason that the vast majority of users -- on any platform -- don't use eamcs or mutt is because they are attracted to eye candy. Most people, including myself, believe computers should make life easier. Software, therefore, is better when it offers more fnctionality combined with a flatter learning curve. That's where emacs, mutt and similar applications fall down: a lot of functionality comb
Re:No Link Between GPL and Innovation (Score:3, Insightful)
OpenOffice and Evolution are fighting in product segments where Microsoft has had a virtual stranglehold for the last 10 years. Compatibility with them is absolutely necessary to drive a wedge for more F/O
Re:No Link Between GPL and Innovation (Score:2)
If someone's goal is to displace Microsoft products with F/OSS products, then mimicing MS software makes sense. If the goal, however, is to deliver innovative software, it doesn't make sense.
Re:No Link Between GPL and Innovation (Score:2)
Isn't that choosing to quote the other end of the animal, because it suits your purpose?
Proprietary code permits the owner of the code to determine what features are included in a product, and that's deemed to be a detriment to creativity, since you don't have the code, you can't add them yourself.
Having to target the features of Outlook, because that's what the users of a product you want to replace
Re:As a regular user of Evolution (Score:3, Insightful)
Among Linux users (and BSD users as well, although Linux users tend to be more "excitable" on this point), however, there are a great
Re:As a regular user of Evolution (Score:3, Informative)
And so, I see a clear picture of a large, pink flamingo, with beautiful plumage, with its head in the sand.
I know, it's a myth - they really don't bury their heads in the sand, but that's not true of humans. People bury their heads in intellectual sand all the time.
Software licenses mirror politics in this respect. If anybody EVER begins to complain about the "damn gubmint" my
Re:As a regular user of Evolution (Score:2)
Whats complaining about the "damn gubmint" got to do with voting? Democracy is arguably a myth propogated to make people beleive they are in control of a country. The fact that in a succesful democracy, such as the UK only 30-40% of people bother to vote for the candidates presented, that have identical policies is sort of damning isn't it?
Btw, using unlicensed software isn't a criminal offence, it's a civil offence. There
Re:As a regular user of Evolution (Score:2)
If the trend continues, countries like the UK, where the copyright law makes sense, will become even more of a minority, since almost every recent change to copyright law I've seen has been to reduce the burden on copyright owners(unless they were also creators) to actually get those rights protected.
You should care, it matters (Score:2)
Get a license too far whacked, and it becomes effectively un-distributable, ( or commercial ) and effects everyone...
Does that happen in this case? I don't know, but the general concept of what is happen should be of concern to you as a user of 'free' software.
As a side note, I do agree though that it has all gotten out of hand with all the license/ip/patents/copyright issues, but all
Re:As a regular user of Evolution (Score:2)
Ever use another popular email program named pine? You know why it's increasingly dead? Because it has a *bad license*. You ever hear people complaining about the problems with djbdns's license, or qmail's license?
Just because a license doesn't directly impact you at the moment doesn't mean that it won't in the future, or won't do so indirectly (and possibly just as significantly).
The FSF asks people to sign over copyright also (Score:3, Insightful)
Nothing to see here, move along.
Re:The FSF asks people to sign over copyright also (Score:2, Informative)
Personally I would only sign a copyright assignment when the copyright assignment says the software isn't allowed to be released under a non-free software.
Re:The FSF asks people to sign over copyright also (Score:2)
Crap, I'm confused now. Who'm I supposed to aim my pitchfork at?
Not In Perpetuity (Score:2)
No one will believe it here. The system is working looking for exploits
CC.
Re:Not In Perpetuity (Score:2)
------
On Fri, 2004-08-06 at 22:06 +0000, Carlos Morgado wrote: > So Rui is sort-of-right, he's just picking on the wrong point or believing > it's blidingly obvious the "or" between Works and Program makes it possible > for a non free version for Evo to be released as long as the original patch > remains unchanged.
It's not an or that's the problem. It's:
A. B.
Two sentences. Neither of them acceptable on a GPL project.
A ~= We'll make it availab
Slashdot food? (Score:5, Insightful)
Just leave it already. Seems that this passes pretty unseen amongst outsiders anyway.
Re:Slashdot food? (Score:2, Funny)
Where's the BS filter gone?
Didn't you hear? It was uninstalled so Taco could play Doom3.
RegardselFarto
GPL concerns? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that so long as the code remains free, I have no problem with an organization being enabled to use the code in their own commercial product. I think it would be ridiculous for them not to be able to gain benefit from the activity they sponsor.
I guess what they are trying to do is say "okay, anything you give is ours first and then we give it back... but we want to be able to use it in proprietary code but you still get to keep the code too..."
Re:BSD license (Score:3, Insightful)
As it stands now, only Novell can do what they want with the code, as they get the copyright, and everybody outside of Novell 'just' gets the GPLed version and can't thus reuse the code in a proprietary product as Novell can.
KDE Integration (Score:3, Interesting)
Hopefully it will integrate with KDE a little better. Little things like sound would be nice - or being able to configure it without having to fire up Gnome Control Centre.
It's probably never going to happen, because Evolution is Gnome through and through, but it would be nice to be able to run it without all those Gnome libraries eating up memory. The performance hit since upgrading to SuSE 9.1 has been really noticeable.
Re:KDE Integration (Score:5, Funny)
Let's call it Kreationism
MOD PARENT UP, please (Score:2)
MOD PARENT UP (Score:2)
Re:KDE Integration (Score:2)
Overall, I like it way more than I like Evolution.
Re:KDE Integration (Score:2)
Have you tried to remove your old configuration files before using a current version, if they're really old they sometimes do weird things
Um... so what? The FSF does this too! (Score:5, Informative)
As I mentioned on the linked page: "Also, the FSF makes all contributors attribute copyrights to the FSF. They do this for legal reasons. Mozilla did not, and when they decided to re-license, they had to contact every contributor. Because of this, we too require that any contributors attribute the copyrights to the jasabe project. Of course, you are still free to fork the project and keep your changes under your copyright, but we cannot accept your changes into the main jasabe tree."
Don't believe me? More info can be found on the FSF page [gnu.org] as well as on their FAQ. [gnu.org]
Not that it matters much for our project. It's only important if you have contributors.
Re:Um... so what? The FSF does this too! (Score:3, Informative)
The question is who you trust, either Novell which has a history of making tightly controlled proprietary software, or the FSF which is potentially more trustworthy, at least in my opinion.
I wouldn't want to contribute my copyright because I wouldn't want the license to be changed without my permission, so I wouldn't contribute to something like this, but then I have little to offer it anyway so in this case it's a moot point.
MySQL Dual Licensing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:MySQL Dual Licensing (Score:4, Interesting)
From day one mysql and open office have had clear policies about how they work. Their communities are built of people who accepted that when they joined while the people who didnt went elsewhere
In the Gnome case it is making a change later on than the beginning, which makes it more divisive although the thread is probsbly larger and more acrimonious than its importance in the big picture actually is 8)
Anti-proprietary not anti-corporate (Score:2)
I may even be on the ani-B.b side myself, but I think its a mistake to mix the FOSS (anti-proprietary software) movements too closely with an anti-corporate mentality. Not as a question of right/wrong but as a question of tactics and achievable goals.
Open Source will win, the paradigm shift is happening, but open source will not change those nature of the Big.biz economy.
Free Software requires going further than open source, and I think its wa
Makes sense... (Score:2, Insightful)
Whoever want pure GPL can fork Evolution....
I think it's a good thing (Score:2, Insightful)
As far as the licences goes, does it matter? I mean if i wrote something got $1000 for it and decided it was worth selling my code, I'd have no problem with it. It seems that there are people out there who would like you to have a choice on what to do with the code as long as you let everyone see and use your code as they
Letter and Spirit of the GPL (Score:3, Insightful)
What Novell is asking people to do is to sign over the copyright to their code so that they can produce both proprietary and GPL software based on that code.
Well, what happens when all the nice bells and whistles are only added to the proprietary version of evolution? This version becomes much more appealing. As a result, there is a demand for it and users begin to leave the GPL version in drones.
In the end, the bulk of the app's code is only released to lower maintenance costs, while the nice bells are proprietary and you can no longer share the software freely. In philosophical terms, Novell's decision is purely utalitarian, rather than based on the conviction that Free Sofware is the morally correct choice.
In essence, Novell's request for copyright respects the letter but violates the spirit of the GPL.
By signing your copyright over to Novell, you are saying that you do not care all that much about creating communities that share free software, because you are implicitly allowing your code to be contributed to a non-free application. The only way I would sign my code over is if Novell agrees to distribute ALL OF evolution under the GPL at PERPETUITY.
Re:Letter and Spirit of the GPL (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, because everyone chooses to use StarOffice over OpenOffice and Crossover over Wine.
... pratt.
Re:Letter and Spirit of the GPL (Score:2)
What happens? I can't remember exactly, but I think it has to do with cutlery. Spoon, knife, ???
This is not an issue with the GPL at all, this is an issue with theoretical people not contributing to Evolution because their patches could someday potentially be used
Re:Letter and Spirit of the GPL (Score:2)
The license specifies DFSG-compliant, not GPLed. That's less innocent.
Re:Letter and Spirit of the GPL (Score:2)
So the real question is can we devise methods for proprietary code development, so that proprietary code can exist while not making it illegal for us to help our neighbor?
Re:Letter and Spirit of the GPL (Score:2)
For instance, among the more reasonable ones, is I believe, although I could be mistaken, the one that ships with OS-X that allows you to install in up to five computers in your household.
But by definition, a proprietary license does not give you any rights to share or modify the code or re-release it and sell it.
Re:Letter and Spirit of the GPL (Score:2)
Re:Letter and Spirit of the GPL (Score:5, Informative)
Short answer: No.
Longer answer: Novell (or any other copyright owner for that matter) owns the copyright, which is what allows them to decide which license to release a product under. However, if you obtain a GPLed product from a copyright owner, they have granted you the rights laid out in the GPL, such as the right to freely redistribute, and the right to make modifications (provided said mods are released GPL as well). That license cannot be retroactively cancelled. All that Novell could do is refuse to release all future versions of Evo under the GPL. At which point the GPLed version of Evo would probably fork into a separate project. That's the beauty of GPLed code - once it's out there, it's out there. Doesn't matter if the company producing the code goes belly-up, or decides to stop providing updates, or whatever. The code is still there, and can still be worked with.
Not an issue (Score:2)
Then it shouldn't be part of Gnome (Score:4, Insightful)
This is not a violation of the GPL.
But this is a reason to not make Evolution an integral part of Gnome.
There is nothing wrong with Novell doing this, but please don't compare it to situations where developers are asked to assign their code to a foundation. The wxWidgets, Mozilla, Gnome, Apache, Python, etc. foundations have mandates to help their users and contributors. Novell is a corporation, and it is ultimately only responsible to its shareholders.
Novell with Evolution and Sun with OpenOffice - these are like TrollTech with Qt. Better than closed source, but not as good as software which is guided by the interests of its users and developers.
Re:Then it shouldn't be part of Gnome (Score:3, Interesting)
But this is a reason to not make Evolution an integral part of Gnome.
Sorry, but that is complete and utter bullshit.
So what if Novell holds the copyrights? What difference does that make with the typical scenario of a private individual holding the copyrights? As long as it is made available to the GNOME project under a suitable Free Software license, what difference does it make who holds the copyright?
Re:Then it shouldn't be part of Gnome (Score:2)
Well, lets see.. (Score:3, Insightful)
As soon as your code is accepted and put into CVS, you can check it back out, under the GPL. The GPL is non-revokeable. Now having GPL rights to the code is not exactly the same as having ownership of it. Legally it is very different. Pragmaticly, as soon as it is in the public CVS your goal of submitting code the public good has happened. If you are very paranoid, only give them small chunks at a time, making sure that you can checkout your work before you give them more.
What you have lost is the right to take that part of Evolution and close it, sell it as closed code. Now, since you dont own the rights to the other 99% of Evolution, not much lost. Furthermore, Evolution is a fairly large and complex beast so unless you are working on it full time, I think it is unlikely that you could possibly contribute anything that would be usefull outside of Evolution. That is, your doing bugfixes, implementing minor features.
But what if your work is generic stuff that could be used outside Evolution? Do this: write it up as a library. Release the library under whatever license you want - retaining the ownership, and the right to sell it as closed code - and then only give Novell patches to Evolution such that it takes advantage of your library.
Re:Well, lets see.. (Score:2)
Nope. Re-read the license. It says "DFSG compliant", not "GPLed". I dunno what licenses fit the DFSG, though.
Why not joint copyright? (Score:4, Interesting)
OpenOffice.org addressed this via a joint copyright assignment. In fact, IIRC, they started with a copyright assignment akin to Novell/Ximian's, but then eventually decided to do a joint copyright assignment in the interest of spurring more contributions.
IANAL, NDIPOOTV (Nor Do I Play One On TV), but a joint copyright assignment means that the original author retains all their original rights, and can license their code however they wish, but that the other signatory (in the case of Oo.org, Sun) also can license it how they choose.
Novell is paying for this code... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Novell is paying for this code... (Score:2)
I think that people should be using mutt, anyway.
Expect to see more of this... (Score:2)
You can already see this in OpenOffice.Org [openoffice.org] and in MySQL [mysql.org]. I am also attempting this in my EDL Language Project [edlsystems.com]. I do not think it is a bad thing and will in the long term enrich free/open software.
Dual Licensing is a very good intermediatory from a proprietary to a free software environment.
Following in the footsteps of Sun Microsystems (Score:2, Interesting)
Asterisk does this (Score:2)
I believe MySql does this also.
Remember Cygnus? (Score:2)
You don't -have- to contribute... (Score:3, Insightful)
Nobody is restricting anyone's rights, I think. You're under no obligation to give them code, and they're under no obligation to take your code. IF you enter into this agreement, and especially with large sums of cash involved, it's simply two parties entering into an agreement. If you write the best thing in the world for Evolution, and want to hold onto your copyright, nobody will stop you. (Fork the project if you want, etc etc...)
Copyright assignment on Evolution. (Score:5, Informative)
been the rule since its beginning, there is nothing
new.
So this is a three to four year old policy.
Miguel.
Bad business move... Not a GPL violation (Score:2)
Uhm, how about neither.
GPL is just a license. If Novell owns the copyright, they can release the work under as many different licenses as they please.
But asking people to sign over their ownership to you, and later using it in a proprietary product defeats the purpose of the GPL (encouraging contributions) and is pretty horrible PR.
The only good thing about this is that they are telling people in advance that they will do it, instead of surpr
Yawn. (Score:4, Insightful)
Come on guys, this is OLD news. Ximian did this years ago, and nothing's changed except the name.
It hasn't been a real problem with any of the few contributions we've had to the codebase; i think maybe one or two guys got upset about it. It's been more of a hinderance to us, limiting what extenal projects we can utilise for some of the chunkier features. Bigger deterrants to potential contributors is the rapid development pace, limited documentation, the size of the codebase, and our anally retarded quality requirements for patches.
Some of the extensions people want to do aren't useful to the general community and would impact on the user experience for everyone else, or they had under-developed GUI interfaces which we couldn't include in the main product, or they were just poor code. In reality we're lucky if we've had 5% of the code from non-company contributors, and that is probably being generous. So much for Free Software. Often it's quicker and easier to write it ourselves than try to get someone's patch up to speed, unfortunately; but thats a non-technical and non-legal issue.
In 2.2 we'll have an extension mechanism that will let anyone write extensions and release them separate to the main codebase. This will entirely negate most of the issues here since the code will no longer have to be accepted into the main codebase to extend Evolution, and hence wont require assignment. We'll have something like the kernel tainting mechanism to enforce valid combinations (and also to let us know if it isn't our bug).
Not according to the article. (Score:2)
"Ximian agrees to grant back to Developer, and does hereby grant, nonexclusive, royaltyfree and noncancelable rights to use the Works,"...
So. YOU write the code and then you give ALL THE RIGHTS to Novell.
Then Novell licenses YOUR CODE BACK TO YOU.
Re:Not according to the article. (Score:2)
Re:Not according to the article. (Score:2)
Then Novell licenses YOUR CODE BACK TO YOU.
This is the sort of thing that could only happen in Japan.