On 13/11/2009 20:51, Walter Bright wrote:
Yigal Chripun wrote:
[...]
On dsource you wrote: "The current situation requires to get an explicit
permission to change the license from each contributor for his code and
if someone cannot be contacted for any reason, his contribution cannot
be re-licensed."
That's a big problem. The only solution I can see is to relicense with
the Boost license whatever you can of Tango. We faced the same issue
with Phobos, and we're just going to dump what cannot be relicensed.
This is very important IMO, probably as important as the license itself.
This is exactly why the GNU project rejects contributions even if they
are licensed under the GPL unless the the contributer agrees to give
ownership of the copyright to the FSF (the legal entity for the GNU
project).
Almost all open source projects do the same. a notable exception is the
linux kernel and I think this influenced the decision to not upgrade to
GPL3.
Does that mean that all of Phobos is under one legal entity - Digital
Mars I presume? If not, than it really should be and you should require
the same policy for future contributions.
I don't want to see each module licensed under a different person
(Andrei, Sean, You, etc..).
