Am 25.05.2010 10:42, schrieb David Sommerseth: > Personally, I would also not enforce BSD as the only license for > bounties. We need to provide at least a choice, at least between GPL > and BSD. > > I would not consider to license my contributions to OpenVPN as BSD, > because a) I want other people to be able to review my code at any > point, no matter the circumstances the code is used, and b) If someone > modifies/improves the code, I want these changes to be shared with the > community. GPL gives that possibility.
I agree with both of your points. I assume that the monetary value of a bounty is far lower than what a professional programmer would usually be paid. Therefore the bounty-work would still be (at least in part) a voluntary work. So, defining that whoever provides the bounty also always more-or-less owns the rights on the resulting work, looks somewhat wrong. Allowing bounties to define the licensing details to a certain degree would circumvent the problem. I assume the typical bounty would be rather low and should therefore allow the contributor to stick with the project's license - the GNU GPL. A few links that might of interest on the topic of bounties: http://live.gnome.org/BountiesDiscussion lists some interesting thoughts. http://nextsprocket.com/ looks like a relatively active site for opensource bounties in general. https://www.bountysource.com/ Interesting "How do bounties work" diagram on the front page. Cheers Fabian
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
