[dmd-internals] DMD copyright assignment

[Sean Kelly via dmd-internals]

On Jun 23, 2014, at 5:25 PM, Walter Bright via dmd-internals <dmd-internals at puremagic.com> wrote:
> 
> What practical right does one retain when it is licensed under Boost?
> 
> Ya know, I don't want to retain rights to D. I originally tried to make it public domain, until several people informed me that PD was not a legal concept in many countries. Boost was the next best thing. I want to continue to make D as available as possible, and that means the license may need to be adjusted in the future. If contributors do not share those goals, then yes, they should reconsider contributing to D.
> 
> I do understand the issue of retaining credit for one's work. But I believe that the github commit history amply supports that goal, and is one of the reasons I am very much in favor of using github for D.

I’m past the point of caring about copyrights for my own work.  Even about requiring attribution.  If someone really wants to claim my work is their own, whatever.  All I really care about is that the code exists and hopefully someone benefits from it.  My perspective was a bit different when I was younger and more interested in being recognized for my efforts though.

Regarding licenses in general, I think the issue with releasing code into the public domain is that in some countries it’s not possible for the creator of something to completely absolve themselves of ownership of that thing.  I suspect that assigning the copyright to someone else should be acceptable under that framework, but it would be worth looking into.  Maybe the GCC folks would know, since they do require assigning copyright to them when code is contributed, correct?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/dmd-internals/attachments/20140624/6ab247c0/attachment-0001.sig>