In that case of patches (especially when they are small) you are right. However, I am thinking about the cases where a new project is started. For my last project I just decided on Apache 2.0 because that *seems* to work across a wider spectrum of other open-source licenses. But I am not expert. Hence, the original post of a decision tree that helps to decide on a suitable license.
On 9/26/07, Donald J Bindner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 01:06:40PM -0500, Alexander Horn wrote: > > 2) Must all developers contribute their changes back to your > > open-source solution? > > a) Yes > > b) No > > > > if a) go to I > > if b) go to .... > > It isn't exactly the same as what you wrote. I have realized > that going forward I when I submit patches to folks, I intend to > always transfer my copyright to the original author. > > It is rare that I contibute anything very large, and I always > contribute to open source things anyway. So why not make sure > the author has flexibility to move to a different license (like > the new GPL or whatever)? > > Seems like a good policy for small changes anyway. Perhaps if I > contributed something very substantial I would feel differently. > > Don > > -- > Don Bindner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > To get off this list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with Subject: unsubscribe > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- Alex ----------------------------------------------------------------- To get off this list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with Subject: unsubscribe -----------------------------------------------------------------
