Yes, it seems better to be safe than sorry here and I think David's suggestion is a good one. I'm not sure how vigilant people have been about updating the author sections but that would be a good thing to have right as well.
-M. Hampton On Nov 26, 12:44 am, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Nov 25, 10:38 pm, Jason Grout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > root wrote: > > > Standard industry practice on half a million open source projects > > > does not include an "I have signed over my copyright on this particular > > > patch" button. A general copyright judgement making the current practice > > > illegal would wipe out the free software movement overnight (except for > > > the FSF work, but they have paid lawyers). > > > To my understanding, David is not asking people to sign over their > > copyright, only for the people to explicitly license their contribution > > (but retain copyright). > > Yes, that is the exact intention, i.e. we do not want the copyright of > the Sage library to be held by some legal body, but that it remains > with the original author. The goal here is to implement a cleaner > process so that if we ever have to deal a legal issue we have > everything in writing. I cannot see how anyone could misunderstand the > license of the Sage library, but the law is not about obvious > correctness, but the letter and as we have all seen the current > Amercian legal system is a little different than one would expect, > i.e. the whole set of SCO lawsuits which were merit less from the get > go but dragged on to this day in court. > > > -Jason > > Cheers, > > Michael --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
