My opinion about the license: I think clause 7 belongs with or after 0, since they are both definitions, and definitions usually (?) go at the start of a license. Then everything else after three shouldn't be in the source code at all, since it is relevant to contributors of code and not at all relevant to people merely using or modifying the source under the terms of the GPL. Those clauses can go in documentation for contributors, on the website, sort of like what MySQL has at http://forge.mysql.com/contribute/cla.php
The credit section is unclear to me - are you advocating putting names in code or not? I agree with the advice from the "Poisonous People" talk (http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=-4216011961522818645) about this. It's hard to decide when to put a name in a file or not, and it shouldn't even be an issue, since credit is given in a central file. I also like the idea of preventing individual ownership of any part of a project, and I can think of a few reasons not to let anyone "own" a specific part of a project: -it may discourage others from working on that part, leading to stagnation -the owner might feel like they have extra power over other members of the community with regards to their code -the owner might become biased against things like replacing or refactoring away code that they own These things being said, documentation of the legal and procedural stuff is a much needed improvement when it comes to attracting participation, so I'm glad the ball is rolling. _______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
