Re: Nuitka - GPLv3 plus contribution copyright assignment
Kay Hayen, 2012-01-05 19:53+0100:
> I would make it say something like this:
>
> # If you (not Kay Hayen) submit patches
So far, this is a contributor agreement.
> # or make the software
> # available to licensors of this software in either form,
But here you are starting to add on the license, taking high risks
of making it non-free and requiring analysis by all the potential
distributors.
> # 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.
No need to except yourself: I do not see any problem in you requiring
yourself to give yourself a right to relicense your own code. :-)
> Legally, it would appear like "dual licensing", right?
I do not think so. Dual licensing is usually understood as: pick the
license of your choice. Here, it rather sounds like a contributor
agreement: if you want to contribute, allow me to relicense your code
under the ASF.
Honestly, I think it would be simpler to as add a simple comment stating
that you wish to relicense it later, and for that reason ask your
contributors to license their work under AFS rather than GPL if they
want you to integrate their work. As I described before, I do not think
that has any undesired effect in practice.
I think you should want to avoid making any modification to the license
at all, and adding a requirement for redistribution is such a
modification. Adding a requirement for contribution, that is having a
policy for integrating contributed work is fine as far as I know, and
has been used in many projects, mostly in the form of copyright
assignment. But you should be aware that this may discourage some
contributors.
--
,--.
: /` ) Tanguy Ortolo <xmpp:tanguy@ortolo.eu> <irc://irc.oftc.net/Tanguy>
| `-' Debian Developer
\_
Reply to: