I use LGPL and i think (hope, actually) that it gives me a free full
license for any patch i receive.
That's what several people summarizing it for me have told me.

But as far as i'm concerned, it goes both ways; any patch is included
in a free update that may be re-hosted.
It's just about who-does-the-coordinating and final descision making.
That should be the original author for as long as he/she chooses.

And i don't mind contributors insisting on crediting them in the
appropriate place with at least 1 line, with an option for another
line with a url of their choosing.
If the url is / gets malicious, the browser content virus-malware
services will warn users about it these days.

On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 5:54 AM, Paul M Foster <pa...@quillandmouse.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 05:38:36AM +0100, Rene Veerman wrote:
> <snip>
>> but if it turns out he's truely leeching on the work of others (by for
>> instance requiring authors to give him (near-)free exclusive rights or
>> something), then i'd have to switch sides, and say that authors need
>> to be warned of such practices. They should at least retain the full
>> rights to their work and be able to quickly and permanently remove
>> their work from a site like phpclasses.org, including the removal of
>> individual files.
> Yeah, I have a real beef with copyright-assignment, like what the GNU
> Project insists upon. If I built a program, I get to keep the copyright
> and determine the license.
> I feel the opposite way about patches. If you submit a patch to my
> sourceforge project, it's copyrighted by me. I don't make money off the
> project and I don't want to fight with you later about the code. And if
> I submit a patch to your project, you're free to do as you like with the
> code and its copyright.
> By the way, I am *not* saying Manuel does this. I'm just commenting on
> Rene's post.

PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Reply via email to