On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 2:41 PM, Sam Spilsbury <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 7:27 PM, Kristian Lyngstøl >> I may not contribute much any more, but I take my copyright serious, >> as should everyone. The history of Compiz and licenses isn't nearly >> solid and mature enough for me to believe it's sane to expect >> developers to trust a council with all their copyright, specially when >> our organization isn't even close to mature. > > With the general volatility of the project, I'll agree to this > statement. However does this outweigh the consideration that > developers may become out-of-contact as has happened in the past?
Well, it's not a real problem. Instead of setting up a legal entity (who would maintain it? Where would it be registered? What would it do?) to solve a possible problem, it's far easier to just agree on a set of licenses that are acceptable. Specially since this is already the de facto way of doing it right now. GPL2+ and MIT is what we mostly deal with. Unless you intend to accept other licenses or foresee a problem with those choices, I'm not sure I know what you are trying to solve. It's simpler to let the creator retain the copyright, and it's also - in many ways - safer. You may want to take a look at COPYING in git, though I'm not really a big Linus-file, he has a valid point every once in a while. And yeah, Linux is licensed under GPL2 (only). Bureaucracy should only be instituted to solve a real problem, and I believe history has shown that this isn't a real problem. - Kristian _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.compiz-fusion.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
