On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 11:41:38 -0400, Oz Linden (Scott Lawrence) wrote: > On 2010-08-18 6:38, Henri Beauchamp wrote: > > - DO NOT SEGREGATE SUBMISSIONS: since you made Snowstorm LGPL, there > > is now*no more need* for the FLOSS exception and for contribution > > agreements (since you can take a snapshot of the Open Source viewer > > at anytime and incorporate them to your own closed source viewer, > > and this without any LGPL contributor additional permission). > > There is no longer any FLOSS exception; as you point out, it would be > redundant with the LGPL. > > We still do require a Contribution Agreement, for good and valid reasons > I've explained many times - most notably that it allows us to improve > our license in the future. Had we not required the CA in the past, we > would not have been able to change from GPL to LGPL.
Since the license is now LGPL, you do not need any more such an agreement, even to change the license later. Every new submission to the code falls under the LGPL License, which allows you to reuse the said code together with more code under another License (including closed source code). You'd need an agreement only after changing the license (for example if you want to go back to a mixed GPL+FLOSS License) for people who would submit patches *after* the License is changed from LGPL. SL is the ONLY so-called (but actually still not, obviously: a Canada-Dry LGPL, perhaps ?) LGPL Open Source project requiring a License agreement from its contributors !!! This makes strictly no sense and is a clear impairement. I'd also be curious to know any other of your "good and valid reasons"... Regards, Henri. _______________________________________________ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
