On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 10:37 AM, Olivier Beaton <[email protected]> wrote:
> My first stab at this was to use a contributor agreement that > contained a copyright assignment, as people do for dual-licensing with > GPL code. A little bit later I found the Zend Framework license, which > uses a BSD-3-Clause and a contributor agreement (which forces > contributions to give ZF a license to the code in the contribution, > not copyright assignment) and I quickly changed to suit. Rob seems to > think this may still be unnecessary, and I've sent a mail to the OSI > license-discuss mailing to list for clarification on that matter. Yeah, I think Rob's right on that, but would be interested to see what you find out. I personally don't philosophically object to having extensions in the repo that require dual-licensing of all future contributions under some set of OSI-approved licenses, without any kind of copyright assignment. But I can see that it might be a pain to maintain such a regime in practice. -- Erik Möller VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
