I use LGPL and i think (hope, actually) that it gives me a free full license for any patch i receive. That's what several people summarizing it for me have told me.
But as far as i'm concerned, it goes both ways; any patch is included in a free update that may be re-hosted. It's just about who-does-the-coordinating and final descision making. That should be the original author for as long as he/she chooses. And i don't mind contributors insisting on crediting them in the appropriate place with at least 1 line, with an option for another line with a url of their choosing. If the url is / gets malicious, the browser content virus-malware services will warn users about it these days. On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 5:54 AM, Paul M Foster <pa...@quillandmouse.com> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 05:38:36AM +0100, Rene Veerman wrote: > > <snip> > >> but if it turns out he's truely leeching on the work of others (by for >> instance requiring authors to give him (near-)free exclusive rights or >> something), then i'd have to switch sides, and say that authors need >> to be warned of such practices. They should at least retain the full >> rights to their work and be able to quickly and permanently remove >> their work from a site like phpclasses.org, including the removal of >> individual files. > > Yeah, I have a real beef with copyright-assignment, like what the GNU > Project insists upon. If I built a program, I get to keep the copyright > and determine the license. > > I feel the opposite way about patches. If you submit a patch to my > sourceforge project, it's copyrighted by me. I don't make money off the > project and I don't want to fight with you later about the code. And if > I submit a patch to your project, you're free to do as you like with the > code and its copyright. > > By the way, I am *not* saying Manuel does this. I'm just commenting on > Rene's post. > -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
