Alan DuBoff wrote:
On Wednesday 31 January 2007 04:16 pm, Shawn Walker wrote:
The contributor agreement isn't going anywhere. It just makes plain good
sense to have. Any project without one is on shaky legal ground.
IANAL, but I have to ponder why code released under the BSD license doesn't
need to have a contributor agreement signed...???
No license requires you to have a contributor agreement to release code under
it - BSD is no different than GPL or CDDL there.
Contributor agreements are required by projects who want central legal control
for being able to change licenses or go after people who use their code without
following the license terms. So, CDDL doesn't require a contributor agreement,
the OpenSolaris project does.
This is truely one of the puzzling piece of OpenSolaris to me. If you
contribute BSD licensed code you don't need to sign the contributor
agreement, but if you contribute CDDL code, you do. What type of statement
does that make about the code?
The only statement that makes is that you misunderstand the licenses.
A BSD-licensed project could require contributor agreements to avoid the
sorts of headaches they had when UCB changed the BSD license to drop the
hated advertising clause and they had to get each copyright owner to agree
to relicense under the same terms.
--
-Alan Coopersmith- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
