Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
W/o transfer of copyright to the ASF, we'd simply be redistributing IBMs copyrighted work. I can certainly see the argument that it isn't so bad, as the software is under the AL2, but this is a departure from how we historically operate, or so we believed.
I can't speak to your beliefs, but to date all software grants to date have merely been merely non-exclusive licenses. Check out Roy's post to board@ on 9/23/2004 on this matter, with a subject line of "Re: Copyright attributions in software-granted works".
If the code were to remain 100% IBM, then Derby certainly does not belong at the ASF. If/when a diverse community of contributors are established, then having the ASF distribute the collective works of a set of contributors, each having provided an explicit license to for the ASF to do so, is EXACTLY how the ASF has operated.
Copyright assignment may be the best option available, but it is a significant departure from how the ASF has historically operated, not the other way around.
- Sam Ruby
