[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Thoughts triggered by these NeXTbuntu guys

From: Chris Vetter
Subject: Re: Thoughts triggered by these NeXTbuntu guys
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 12:10:15 +0200

On 2006-08-30 08:31:01 +0200 Jeremy Tregunna <address@hidden> wrote:
Then if we get a person who is able to contribute there is another thing
that I consider the second most important problem - the copyright
assignment to FSF.

Amen to that.

This topic deserves another message with a different subject line,
here I can only say that it presents a natural obstacle for people who,
like me, wants their work to be recognized by others.
Thus the Nextbuntu's idea on removing this requirement seems to me
quite appealing.
This I'm not so sure about. For a large project, requiring code to be copyright assigned to a neutral third party (or if run by committee, that group) can save you from cases where someone might get all pissy and decide they want to revoke distribution privileges for all their code they've contributed, setting the project back potentially many months. If you don't want to assign copyright, you don't have to -- you can maintain a separate patchset outside of GNUstep. But please, don't confuse assigning copyright to the FSF as not getting credit. All you have to do is look through the GNUstep source code, and you'll see "written by..." even if the module has been rewritten, you'll usually see a "original implementation by ..."; credit is given.

There are people out there who WANT to contribute to GNUstep directly (like adding missing classes) and do NOT want to offer a separate patchset (because it may not make much sense) and do NOT want to sign the copyright thingy, not because they fear not getting credit but simply because they do not want to SIGN anything.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]