On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 7:40 AM Jean Abou Samra <j...@abou-samra.fr> wrote:
> Le 20/10/2022 à 07:22, Werner LEMBERG a écrit : > > It would be a problem if we assigned copyright to the FSF. > As you mentioned below, we don't do this. > > > [*] Here comes the benefit of transferring the copyright to the FSF, > > which can handle such things without having to ask the original > > author AFAIK. LilyPond, however, inspite of being a GNU project, > > doesn't ask contributors for such a copyright transfer. > I would think it to be a more sustainable way forward to assign the copyright of contributions to the Lilypond project itself (or a similar entity, in charge of the project but not linked to the identity of one or more specific individuals). Some folks use a statement like "Copyright 2012, 2016-2019 The contributors of the Lilypond Project", for example. This has two kinds of advantages: one is that in instances like this where it becomes sensible to re-license some content, this can be done in a way that is transparent and doesn't necessitate tracking down specific individuals. (At the moment this list is where these discussion would happen, so the archives will provide a mean to track down when and how a given decision was made). The other advantage is that it provides better insulation for the individual contributing persons against non-benevolent external parties that might show up to assert rights they might think they have (rightfully or not). Classic example would be patent rights infringement. Although Lilypond is not a commercial project, nor it is a particularly big one (so it's unlikely to attract attention from unsavory characters), I do feel it would be a good ethical standard to apply on the part of the project managers and owners to try and insulate the contributors from potential unpleasantness. I repeat my disclaimer: Although I have been part of extensive discussions on this topic, I am not a lawyer, and my words do not constitute legal advice. Luca -- Luca Fascione
