D library projects : adopting Boost license

Yigal Chripun yigal100 at gmail.com
Sat Nov 14 14:45:50 PST 2009


On 15/11/2009 00:28, dsimcha wrote:
> == Quote from Yigal Chripun (yigal100 at gmail.com)'s article
>> On 13/11/2009 20:51, Walter Bright wrote:
>>> Yigal Chripun wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>
>>> On dsource you wrote: "The current situation requires to get an explicit
>>> permission to change the license from each contributor for his code and
>>> if someone cannot be contacted for any reason, his contribution cannot
>>> be re-licensed."
>>>
>>> That's a big problem. The only solution I can see is to relicense with
>>> the Boost license whatever you can of Tango. We faced the same issue
>>> with Phobos, and we're just going to dump what cannot be relicensed.
>> This is very important IMO, probably as important as the license itself.
>> This is exactly why the GNU project rejects contributions even if they
>> are licensed under the GPL unless the the contributer agrees to give
>> ownership of the copyright to the FSF (the legal entity for the GNU
>> project).
>> Almost all open source projects do the same. a notable exception is the
>> linux kernel and I think this influenced the decision to not upgrade to
>> GPL3.
>> Does that mean that all of Phobos is under one legal entity - Digital
>> Mars I presume? If not, than it really should be and you should require
>> the same policy for future contributions.
>> I don't want to see each module licensed under a different person
>> (Andrei, Sean, You, etc..).
>
> I personally would have a hard time giving the copyright up for stuff that I
> worked on without pay.  I don't mind licensing it permissively, but the idea that
> it's even possible (even if it's not likely) for someone to prevent me from
> relicensing subsequent versions own code under whatever terms I want bothers me.
> For example, let's say that (hypothetically, not that this has any chance of
> happening) that Digital Mars switched to GPL for Phobos.  If I had given them the
> copyright to my code, I wouldn't be able to keep the stuff I wrote permissively
> licensed.

I can't see how that's possible. if you contribute to Phobos under Boost 
license and Phobos is re-licensed under GPL that would mean that any 
future versions would be GPL but you should be able to fork your 
original Boost licensed version and release subsequent versions of that 
under Boost license.

The project needs to have the ability to adapt its license in the future 
due to various reasons. case in point is tango: they are discussing 
changing the license and maybe even go with a Phobos compatible license 
to help a merger of the two code bases. this requires all contributors 
(past and present) to agree to this and if somebody cannot be contacted 
for whatever reason (maybe he lost interest in Tango and D) than his 
code cannot be re-licensed. Big problem.



More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list