> Eric Patton wrote: > With the GNU GPL version 3 scheduled to be released tomorrow, > are there are plans on adopting this license for Grass?
my 2c: Sit on it for 6 months - a year (or two!) after release and see how the dust settles before seriously raising the issue. Do not accept GPL2- incompatible code until such time as that decision is made. (aka don't be the guinea pig; keep the licensing terms clear & crisp) Eric: > > Is copyright on GRASS code held by individual authors? Markus: > In general yes. > > > Or is the copyright transferred to the GRASS project itself > > when code is submitted? > > No. We don't have copyright transfer. This was discussed a lot > last year in terms of an OSGeo contribution agreement. It is suggested that co-copyright be granted to "The GRASS Development Team", but as Frank pointed out that only exists as a moral entity, not a legal one, so the issue is still open. Joining OSGeo means that forming a legal non-profit GRASS Foundation (or OGCv2) for that is mostly a redundant exercise, but there are reservations with handing GDT copyright over to OSGeo wholesale (ie in the hands of folks who are outside of the grass community [if only slightly]). > > Or, to put it another way, does adopting a different liscence > > require the concent of every single contributor, or merely > > a decision by the project steering committee? > > As far as I understand it, it requires the concent of every > single contributor *if* the new license is not compliant > with GPL. Note that most (all?) code contains GPL >= V2. And that GPL3 is not retroactive to already released versions. Hamish _______________________________________________ grassuser mailing list [email protected] http://grass.itc.it/mailman/listinfo/grassuser
