Walter Bright wrote:
Yigal Chripun wrote:
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..).
I think you make a very good point.
I think the GNU stuff is a bit different, because the GPL is an
aggressive license -- the FSF intends to defend the license, taking
offenders to court. Legal battles are expected, and having a single
legal entity makes it easier to win the case.
By contrast, the Boost license exists solely for the benefit of the
users, giving them a guarantee that court cases will _not_ occur.
I think that throughout Boost all of the authors retain their original
copyright.
