[dmd-internals] DMD copyright assignment

[Leandro Lucarella via dmd-internals]

Steven Schveighoffer via dmd-internals, el 24 de June a las 11:10 me escribiste:
> 
> On Jun 24, 2014, at 2:33 AM, Walter Bright <walter at digitalmars.com> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > On 6/23/2014 9:00 PM, Steven Schveighoffer via dmd-internals wrote:
> >> 
> >> A statement saying that any contributors must agree that they give permission for Digital Mars to change the license of their code to any future version of boost license would be sufficient and reasonable, IMO. Remember that if any issues ever arise with boost license, the boost project is sure to fix them, and then we can adopt that new license.
> >> 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > LLVM doesn't require copyright assignment, but they admit on their site that they are aware that implies the LLVM license can never change. GCC requires copyright assignment for larger contributions.
> 
> I think as Luca says, it's to have standing to sue in court, not to be able to relicense. GCC's projects ALWAYS give the user the option of using any future version of GPL, so they have a similar stipulation to what I stated.
> 
> > 
> > If the copyright holder agrees to such a clause, what rights do they retain as copyright holder? Such open-ended clauses may also even be invalid - I've never heard of one. Going with copyright assignment is simple and direct. I don't care to try and break new legal ground here. I don't care to risk the hard work of every contributor to D by trying a novel legal theory.
> 
> This isn't too complicated, it's the same rights they have that aren't granted by the license. Basically, they are licensing under boost and any future version of boost. The GPL is the example I'm thinking of, it's very pervasive.
> 
> When I license code under a copyright, I retain the ownership rights. This means I can relicense as I please, I can write derivative works without permission from anyone else, I can redistribute however I want. But the license I grant to you dictates what you can do. All I am doing is granting you a perpetual right to relicense under a future version of boost. I don't think this is new legal ground.

I think boost + clause saying you can optionally use it with any future
boost license version à la GPL should be enough for any concerns about
relicensing. It works for GPL, and they have lawyers behind that
decision and there are numerous projects using that. I think requiring
copyright assignment could do more harm than good. Heck! DMDFE code
couldn't be contributed for a long time to the GCC, even when it was
GPL, because they required a copyright assignment!

If the copyright assignment requirement were well grounded, then maybe
it would be justified, but to require it just based on a potential
unknown and extremely unlikely fear seems pointless.

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca)                     http://llucax.com.ar/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cuanta plata que aquí circula y yo que ando con gula...
	-- Sidharta Kiwi