I should point out that my earlier message in this thread was to recommend that Curt not pursue the relicensing because the benefits are probably too small to outweigh both the non-trivial effort for the developers and the fairly large risk of causing FGFS to fork. However, that is independent of how I license my contributions.
Erik said: > Also not that none of my code contributions have an explicit copyright I think I've said this before. If I submit a patch against someone else's file, the patch is intended to inherit the copyright and any current or future licensing of the containing file or code fragment. When I create a file, or submit a large patch to a file without an identified copyright owner, the intent is to retain the copyright in my name and apply _only_ the then-current GPL license version. To save confusion, don't bother asking me to me-copyrighted files under the GPL with any version and automatic upgrade to future versions. There are no restrictions on how the FSF organisation can rewrite the intent and content of future versions of the GPL. Those future versions could, for example, grant a $0.01/sourceline royalty to RMS for any commercial use of GPL'ed software. _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
