You're omitting some key facts. So no, I don't agree with your legal analysis.
But the underlying point remains: there is unnecessary murkiness around Racket's licensing status. > On 23 Aug 19, at 11:24 AM, Alexis King <lexi.lam...@gmail.com> wrote: > > AFAIK, copyright of the Racket codebase is not the Racket core team’s to > give. Racket has no CLA, so its copyright belongs to all of the individual > contributors, core team members or not. If the Racket core team did own the > copyright, the relicensing effort would have amounted to little more than a > decision. But as-is, whether the SFC takes ownership of copyrights held by > the core team or not is irrelevant, as any individual Racket contributor > could choose to enforce the terms of the license for their contributions > should they desire. But I’m sure you knew all that already—you’re the > lawyer—so I’m curious what you know that I don’t. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/5AC224B1-ED3B-4083-A165-FEB9AB9A701A%40mbtype.com.
