On 26 Jun 2014, at 18:07, Jonathan M Davis via dmd-internals wrote:
I confess that before this discussion I had no idea that by
contributing to
dmd, contributors transferred copyright to digital mars, […]
That's because, indeed, they didn't transfer copyright that way. The
prevailing legal opinion is that this requires adding an extra step to
the contribution process, such as filling in a form that explicitly
states that copyright assignment is taking place.
[…] so it's not like Walter is asking that the
copyright for already contributed code be transferred.
In fact, he did exactly this a few weeks ago in private to be able to
change the license to Boost. All the current contributors were happy to
agree, because it indeed was a simple way to handle the situation. This
also includes me and the all the others who argue that requiring
copyright assignment going forward is a mistake.
But it doesn't sound like the question of assigning copyright for
druntime or Phobos is even on the table […]
Andrei argued for it earlier, but I think it's off the table now, yes.
From the sounds of it, all that Walter is requesting is that we
maintain the status quo.
Just to make it extra clear: No, what Walter is requesting adds an extra
barrier to the contribution process compared to the status quo. This is
not the controversial part. The debate is over whether that is a good
idea or not.
Cheers,
David
_______________________________________________
dmd-internals mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-internals
