On Mon, 8 Dec 2003, Hans Ekbrand wrote: > > Like you say, it's good to keep as many options open as possible, and it's > > hard to go back on a licensing decision if it's too broad. > > No it is the other way around: if the program is released under a less > restricted license, e.g. xfree86-ish, then you could always, without > the consent of contributors, change to (L)GPL for newer versions. The > wine project (http://www.winehq.org) is a real world example of such a > change.
I hadn't considered the issue of ownership of copyright for contributed code. Is it common for open source projects to stipulate that contributors either transfer copyright or agree to allow the owner to change the license? If I asked for such an agreement would I be scaring away potential contributors? I'm starting to wish I didn't have to worry about all this junk. Thanks, Scott -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
