[dmd-internals] DMD copyright assignment

[Walter Bright via dmd-internals]

On 6/25/2014 7:21 AM, Leandro Lucarella via dmd-internals wrote:
>
> Of course I do, I never said I didn't. But I chose to do so based on
> cost-benefit. If I think I'm being asked to cede rights without a good
> reason is very likely that I won't do it. And as David said, I know the
> community, and Walter, so there is a chance I would do it anyway. But
> I'm not so certain other individuals and companies will be willing to do
> that, and as David said you are closing doors for potential
> contributions without any reasonable reason (pardon the redundancy).
>

I have given reasons. If you don't find them reasonable, that's ok, but when you 
say I haven't given a reason then I feel we are just talking past each other. 
It's likely we will never agree 100%, and nearly impossible that 100% of the D 
contributors will agree 100% on anything - at some point we just have to accept 
things and move on.

As for some contributors turning away over this, that would be regrettable. But 
consider that over the years I've worked with a lot of good developers. 
Sometimes I'll run into one that is very, very concerned about other people 
stealing their ideas, and regularly accuse others of actually doing so. When we 
part ways, frankly, it's a relief not to have to deal with them anymore. Do I 
really want to have copyrights inextricably mingled with theirs, so I'm "joined 
at the hip" with them forever? No. And I doubt you would, either. Their 
contribution is just not worth the aggravation.

If anyone should be mad about others stealing code/ideas, it should be me. I 
actually have had people steal my code, blatantly replace my copyright notice 
with theirs, and go on to make 5-6 figures off of it, more than once.

It's taken me many years to come to around to buying into Boost, and not 
worrying about other people stealing my ideas. These days, what makes me happy 
is if someone finds my code good enough to use!

I would make DMD public domain if I could. But legally that won't work. So I go 
for the next best thing. Consider also that:

1. I don't have a well-financed phalanx of lawyers to consult, or even one, let 
alone have the resources to litigate anybody over the rights issue. It's not 
going to happen. Nor do I want to expend the time to do it. Nor is anyone 
offering such resources.

2. I want D to be as available as possible. That means I need to be able to make 
adjustments to the license as required to do so, on behalf of the greater D 
community.

3. You mentioned Boost1 and Boost2 licenses living alongside each other. That 
isn't practical with DMD. Contributions are all inextricably entangled with each 
other in the code. How could anyone try to tease out which are which license?

4. The credit issue is amply handled by github.

5. Many have expressed confidence that Boost is a perfect license and will never 
need changing. All I hear there is my father saying "famous last words". Heck, I 
don't expect my house to burn down, either, but I still buy fire insurance for 
the simple reason that I cannot afford the loss. I don't have comprehensive 
insurance on my car because I can afford to lose the car. I (and I presume to 
include the other dmd contributors) cannot afford to lose DMD.

6. With DMD assignment, the worst case (i.e. I break bad) is that the D 
community will have to rely on Boost 1.0. Without DMD assignment, the best case 
is that we have to rely on Boost 1.0. I don't see any case where the 
contributors or community is legally worse off with CA.

7. All the DMD contributors I have asked to assign copyright have done so. I 
view this with gratitude and great pleasure that we have such an awesome 
community of developers here, all willing to work together to make sure that D 
is and will remain free for all to use without constraint.

8. Dealing with this is not something that I want to do. I just want to write 
code. But who else is going to? Somebody has to step up and do their best to 
make these sorts of decisions, even when not everyone agrees. For better or 
worse, the ball's in my court, and I need to deal with it the best I can. I 
believe that copyright assignment for major contributors to the DMD compiler 
code is the most practical and pragmatic solution for us. It protects you, I, 
and the other contributors to ensure our work will not get discarded for 
unfortunate legal reasons. So I respectfully ask for your indulgence on this.