Steven Schveighoffer via dmd-internals, el 24 de June a las 11:10 me escribiste: > > On Jun 24, 2014, at 2:33 AM, Walter Bright <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On 6/23/2014 9:00 PM, Steven Schveighoffer via dmd-internals wrote: > >> > >> A statement saying that any contributors must agree that they give > >> permission for Digital Mars to change the license of their code to any > >> future version of boost license would be sufficient and reasonable, IMO. > >> Remember that if any issues ever arise with boost license, the boost > >> project is sure to fix them, and then we can adopt that new license. > >> > > > > > > > > LLVM doesn't require copyright assignment, but they admit on their site > > that they are aware that implies the LLVM license can never change. GCC > > requires copyright assignment for larger contributions. > > I think as Luca says, it's to have standing to sue in court, not to be able > to relicense. GCC's projects ALWAYS give the user the option of using any > future version of GPL, so they have a similar stipulation to what I stated. > > > > > If the copyright holder agrees to such a clause, what rights do they retain > > as copyright holder? Such open-ended clauses may also even be invalid - > > I've never heard of one. Going with copyright assignment is simple and > > direct. I don't care to try and break new legal ground here. I don't care > > to risk the hard work of every contributor to D by trying a novel legal > > theory. > > This isn't too complicated, it's the same rights they have that aren't > granted by the license. Basically, they are licensing under boost and any > future version of boost. The GPL is the example I'm thinking of, it's very > pervasive. > > When I license code under a copyright, I retain the ownership rights. This > means I can relicense as I please, I can write derivative works without > permission from anyone else, I can redistribute however I want. But the > license I grant to you dictates what you can do. All I am doing is granting > you a perpetual right to relicense under a future version of boost. I don't > think this is new legal ground.
I think boost + clause saying you can optionally use it with any future boost license version à la GPL should be enough for any concerns about relicensing. It works for GPL, and they have lawyers behind that decision and there are numerous projects using that. I think requiring copyright assignment could do more harm than good. Heck! DMDFE code couldn't be contributed for a long time to the GCC, even when it was GPL, because they required a copyright assignment! If the copyright assignment requirement were well grounded, then maybe it would be justified, but to require it just based on a potential unknown and extremely unlikely fear seems pointless. -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Cuanta plata que aquí circula y yo que ando con gula... -- Sidharta Kiwi _______________________________________________ dmd-internals mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-internals
