> On Aug 23, 2019, at 13:03, Matthew Butterick <m...@mbtype.com> wrote:
> In some cases, SFC takes ownership of trademarks and copyrights [1] which 
> means that in terms of license interpretation & enforcement, assumedly the 
> buck would now stop with them. 

AFAIK, copyright of the Racket codebase is not the Racket core team’s to give. 
Racket has no CLA, so its copyright belongs to all of the individual 
contributors, core team members or not. If the Racket core team did own the 
copyright, the relicensing effort would have amounted to little more than a 
decision. But as-is, whether the SFC takes ownership of copyrights held by the 
core team or not is irrelevant, as any individual Racket contributor could 
choose to enforce the terms of the license for their contributions should they 
desire. But I’m sure you knew all that already—you’re the lawyer—so I’m curious 
what you know that I don’t.

At any rate, I second your desire to know what the status of the relicensing 
effort actually is. Are we looking at three stragglers left on the list who 
still haven’t signed? A dozen? A hundred? And maybe more importantly, how many 
lines of code do they really own? At what point can we not just rewrite those 
portions of the codebase? I know that figuring out ownership can be tricky for 
long-running software projects like these, since the question of what 
constitutes derivative work from the original contribution is often unclear, 
but even just a ballpark estimate would be nice to know.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Racket Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 

Reply via email to