Hi Tim, Thanks for the info. :-)
I have given copyright assignment some thought when I discovered that that is what the GNU project does, and it bothers me. I feel that if I have a copyright stake in a project, then I can ensure that the project license does not change and cannot be hijacked (unlikely though that may be). I think that assignment of a non-profit organization is certainly more palatable than assignment to an individual. That said, the arguments for copyright assignment are reasonable and have merit. I guess it comes down to trusting the project maintainer. I think that the form the Kevin has come up with is a good idea, I'm just not sure about full on copyright assignment. Krys P.S. I am not saying that I do not trust Kevin. Merely that I have concerns about the concept of copyright assignment. Just my opinion, for whatever it is worth. Tim Lesher wrote: >On 10/22/05, Krys Wilken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>I wonder what the Linux kernel guys have as actualy wording for their >>document that is like this. Maybe TG can benefit from asking >>about/reading their document. >> >> > >The Linux kernel DCO is at >http://www.osdl.org/newsroom/press_releases/2004/2004_05_24_dco.html. > > >One thing not mentioned is the idea of copyright assignment. Googling >on those two words should bring up the pro and con arguments, but >overall, I think it's a case of "better safe than sorry", and the >beginning of a project (before significant contributions are made) is >the only good time to decide. > >For example, wxWidgets went through this retroactively, but it never >got acceptance, and it was eventually abandoned. > >For comparison, OpenOffice uses this copyright assignment agreement: >http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/jca.pdf > >(I've gone round the horn with my company over this in the last few >months, so it's all still fresh in my head. :-) ) >-- >Tim Lesher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >
