On 10/22/05, Tim Lesher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
Ahh, I see. Yes, transferring ownership would be difficult if each contributor owned the code. > 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... Actually, it no longer says that. With the coming of new committers and larger code contributions, the license now says Copyright 2005 Kevin Dangoor and contributors. The CherryPy license lists the copyright as being owned by "the CherryPy Team", which I'm pretty sure is not a legal entity. One thing about the MIT license is that it basically says "do what you want, just don't sue me". Clearly, you're not going to have copyright infringement suits with a license like that (unlike the GPL, where you realistically could). That makes it less likely to matter how seriously the copyright on the code is taken. Kevin
