From: Aaron W. LaFramboise (aaronrabiddog51_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-08-04 03:27:23
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote:
> they can authorize any third party to distribite the stuff on
> whatever terms they like. They just can't do it themselves
> without "polluting" the [L]GPL "brand."
This is bordering on offtopic, and as I am not a significant
contributor, I can't have a strong opinion here. However, I think
consideration of copyright assignment (possibly on terms more amenable
to people uninterested in controversial political causes) is worthwhile,
as they provide a solution for the problems that Boost (and many other
projects) has. Particularly in light of what is happening with SCO and
IBM, I think many companies evaluating open source libraries are
interested not only in reasonable licensing terms, but an assurance of
proper code ownership.
For the record, the recent FSF copyright assignment document I have a
physical copy of requires all of FSF's assignees to obey the same
re-licensing terms as the FSF. Perhaps earlier versions did not.
I appreciate your comments,
Aaron W. LaFramboise
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk