[GRASS5] GRASS Project Steering Committee and more
Michael Tiemann
tiemann at redhat.com
Fri Feb 10 20:46:06 EST 2006
On Sat, 2006-02-11 at 01:36 +0000, Glynn Clements wrote:
> Markus Neteler wrote:
>
> > o One benefit of the foundation is some degree of legal
> > support and protection for the project. The flip side of that
> > is that the foundation needs to ensure some degree of
> > rigor and process in how code comes into the project. One
> > part of that is getting committers to sign a legal agreement
> > indicating that they agree that changes they commit will
> > be under the license of GRASS (GPL) and that they have
> > the right to submit the code (they wrote it, it is not
> > patented, have permission from their employer, etc).
>
> Regarding the "not patented" bit, I hope that they are only asking for
> a declaration that the author isn't aware of any applicable patents,
> not indemnity against "accidental" infringment.
That's how I'd interpret it. Moreover, when I submitted code to the
FSF, I recall saying that I did not knowingly infringe any patents. I
believe that's good enough, and I also believe that there are companies
and consortia who have committed to defend such contributions to open
source based on such good-faith representations.
M
More information about the grass-dev
mailing list