Hello Tanguy, Am 05.01.2012 18:08, schrieb Tanguy Ortolo:
Christofer C. Bell, 2012-01-05 17:18+0100:Would it be possible to have, instead, a contributor agreement that allows contributors to retain copyright while at the same time granting you a non-transferable, non-revokable, exclusive right to relicense their contribution under the ASF2.0 license at a time of your choosing?If, as I said, you are thinking about a project management solution, good, because in order to avoid license proliferation and legal questionning by every single distributor, I think it would be better and safer to stay with the unmodified GPL and not add that kind of thing to the license itself.
Generally, I think I couldn't provide a modified GPL license and it's not what I intended to do with the statement. It's just something additional that I do.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I understood that you are trying to avoid that anyone would be able to relicense your project until you relicense it yourself when you see fit. Since, as I said, you are the main author and the project would be unusable without your code, I think this goal would be achieved with that mean.
Yes that is it. It's also similar to what Christofer proposes. I would make it say something like this: # If you (not Kay Hayen) submit patches or make the software # available to licensors of this software in either form, you # automatically them grant them a transferable, non-revokable, # right to relicense the new part of the code to ASF 2.0 unless # you remove this notice before doing so.Then everybody is equal, except me opting out hard coded, so I don't fall into question, of having it not pointed out.
That way, if somebody enters a patch to Debian BTS, he gives Debian not only GPLv3, but also ASF2.0, which in turn, Debian forwards to me (it is not known for having a problem with that, copyright may be another story I feared), and I integrate it then, and retain the ability to re-license.
I guess, it's the same "DFSG legal" wise as what I already have, but ought to be a lot more workable and reads more friendly. It esp. doesn't have the bad word "copyright assignment" in it.
So I would prefer that to what I have in any case.Note, it's different from what Christofer said, in that the "ASF2.0" rights are made transferable.
And it should address what MJ said, because that way, new code is under "ASF2.0" for everybody pretty automatic. That way, my only "unfairness" is to not put my work under GPLv3, a right that I offer everybody else too though.
Legally, it would appear like "dual licensing", right? The difference would be that I won't have a problem to strip the "GPLv3" then from a new release of mine.
Yours, Kay