On 6/23/14, 6:44 PM, Daniel Murphy wrote:
(somehow I failed to hit send on this last night)
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 1:15 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu <[email protected]> wrote:
Do you have a response for the existing precedents in which valuable work
has been wasted?
My understanding is that in each case, work was wasted because it was
under license A which couldn't be converted to license B. Boost
converts to everything else happily, which is why it was picked.
Therefore this problem does not exist with boost.
Boost doesn't convert to "everything else", particularly because
"everything" includes licenses that haven't been created yet.
If Boost 1.0 comes with Boost 2.0 which somehow isn't convertible easily
and obviously from Boost, we'd need to contact everybody "could you
please let us change the license" etc.
More generally (and for everyone), and please don't take this the wrong way
as it comes from someone who knows next to nothing about this: I see there's
considerable discussion here; what is the larger issue that seems to go
unstated? It's entirely fine to want to maintain copyright of one's work,
but on the face of it OSS seems to be a poor vehicle for that.
It's not about wanting to maintain my copyright, it's about removing
an unnecessary hurdle to contribution. For example, if we require
copyright assignment I can't submit code that I don't own the
copyright to, even if it's licence compatible. Since the move to
boost means we don't need it, we shouldn't have it.
I think that's a good point. Walter?
Andrei
_______________________________________________
dmd-internals mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-internals
