On 27 Sep 2007, at 23:58, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Which is most likely the very reason FSF requires copyright assignment > from all contributors to their projects?
That's part of the reason, but a larger part is standing. If someone distributes a FSF project without abiding by the terms of the [L]GPL, then they want to be able to take them to court. They can only do this if they are the owner of the code. > I don't disagree with your suggestion of the idea of the pre-arranged > mechanishm, and it's probably less scary than a copyright assignment > requirement, but it seems like we could be wandering into dangerous > legal > territory. Any code contributed to the project would then need a > special > "This license expires if I can't be contacted" clause, I would > think, so > we'd basically be inventing our own license and requiring that of each > contribution. I wouldn't recommend putting it in the license, it would be an additional grant of rights beyond those in the license, and orthogonal to them. Note that I am simply raising this as an interesting legal option, and not advocating it in any way (I think it's far too open to abuse). > I think the best and easiest option is probably just to favor > BSD/ISC/MIT/public domain code, so that we don't have to worry (much) > about moving code around. Totally agree. David _______________________________________________ Etoile-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/etoile-discuss
