Quoth FRIGN: > On Sun, 06 Jul 2014 20:19:15 +0200 > Michal Nazarewicz <min...@mina86.com> wrote: > > +© 2014 Google Inc. // author: Michal Nazarewicz <min...@mina86.com> > > I don't know about you guys but I don't want Google to infest the > license. Michal, either you join the license with your name only or > forget about the patch. > ... > This is too much of a risk to carry! I don't really see the risk here, actually. I agree it's dangerous to trust large companies in a legal arena where their money can make them incredibly powerful, but how could that affect us, with this?
It's permissively licensed, so beyond patents, I can't see what stick you're afraid of them beating us with. And if you are that worried about companies trying to trick you into patent lawsuits (which, frankly, I don't think we should be here), consider the Apache license. > I've had very bad experiences with big companies having > licensing-rights on smaller software. Was it relevant to this case, of a large company potentially gaining a percentage of copyright over some permissively licensed code? I doubt it, I can't think of an example of anything bad resulting from a situation like that. > Concerning the patch itself: Is the added huge complexity worth it for > this small feature? It's another one of those places where I think the answer is "not in the general case; add it to the wiki". ISTR several previous discussions of patches which roughly concluded "dmenu is not a shell". Nick
