> The FSF site mentions that they like assigned copyrights for the > purposes of enforcing the GPL. I actually think that the MIT license > is liberal enough that assignment of copyright isn't really necessary. > > > For example, wxWidgets went through this retroactively, but it never > > got acceptance, and it was eventually abandoned. > > Do you know why they wanted it? For a license change?
I can't find the relevant mail in the wx archives, but as I recall, it was more about protecting the developers. They wanted to create a legal entity that would shield developers from individual liability down the road, and it couldn't do this if the individual developers still owned the contributions. This was before the name change, when it was feared that Microsoft might have them in the crosshairs. I'm not certain that this makes sense for TG, but it's something to think about, particularly because the wx experience shows that if you want to do it, you need to do it earlier rather than later. Plus there are some schools of thought that, because the TG license specifies that you (Kevin) are the copyright holder, if that's not actually the case, then the license could be declared void. I'm not a lawyer, so don't take that as legal advice... -- Tim Lesher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
