On 7 July 2014 15:53, FRIGN <d...@frign.de> wrote: > On Mon, 07 Jul 2014 15:37:05 +0200 > Michal Nazarewicz <min...@mina86.com> wrote: > >> I'm sorry, but no I'm not. The copyright is owned by Google. If you >> cannot accept corporate copyright there's no point in me trying to get >> the patch to be technically acceptable. > > Well, we don't accept corporate copyright. End of story.
I wouldn't state this as a general rule. At the end of the day it depends on the quality of the contribution. Imagine some company would contribute a significant piece of code that would be of excellent use for us. In such a case I wouldn't object if it meets suckless standards. However in such a case the copyright entry needs to be correct. In contrast the current suggestion by Michal looks very dodgy. > It's more about in case we want to change the license (to ISC for > instance). It's easier and more personal when you can see that a > program has only been written by individuals and not in the shadow of a > giant corporation which does not stand for our values at all. Well, there is nothing wrong with MIT/X and there is no need to change the license to something very similar. For new projects I wouln't mind to use ISC, but changing the license on existing projects seems dodgy to me as well. Best regards, Anselm
