Mark Wielaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Again, GNU Classpath is fairly non-standard in that: >> a) code developers have to be untainted >> b) its a GNU project with FSF-assigned copyright, so there is a formal >> record of all code developers. >> This applies more to code than anything else. > > I don't think this is so non-standard. All projects must have some > process in place to make sure they can actually distribute all > contributions. We are just a little bit more upfront about it since we > want to make as sure as possible not to get surprizes later on. It is > standard practise for FSF GNU projects (see Keeping Free Software Free: > http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/html_node/Legal-Issues.html). And > Apache projects have something similar (See the > Contributor License Agreements http://www.apache.org/licenses/#clas). > Even the Linux kernel these days has a way to track contributors > (Documenting How Patches Reach The Kernel > http://kerneltrap.org/node/3180).
This is a very important point. The GNU project has always got this right and that's why no one has been able to do to GNU software what has been done to Linux by SCO. Whether you think that the SCO case is laughable or not the point is that they would have had no case at all with the GNU project because we track every contribution to our software and get proper (C) assignment from them. -- Nic Ferrier http://www.tapsellferrier.co.uk _______________________________________________ Classpath mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpath
