[GRASSLIST:10801] Re: [GRASS5] FWD: [OSGeo-Discuss] Incubation Committee / Contributor Agreements]

[Frank Warmerdam]

Glynn Clements wrote:
> I believe that, in most cases, releasing code under the GPL provides
> the maximum benefit, as anyone wishing to create derivative works also
> has to licence their version under the GPL. The more GPL'd code that
> exists, the greater the incentive for developers to make new code
> available under the GPL.
> 
> The CLA grants the foundation the right to redistribute contributed
> code under almost any licence, including those which permit
> proprietary derivatives (e.g. BSD and MIT licences). Such licences
> provide significantly less incentive for developers to share their
> additions or enhancements.

Glynn,

Well, I think this is the information we need.  If the CLA is perceived
as a backdoor to undoing the GPL by a significant number of potential
contributors then I think we will just have to alter the CLA to respect
existing licensing.

For projects such as MapGuide OS that sign over all copyright to the
foundation, the option of relicensing would still exist. For project
like GRASS that don't sign over copyright, and more limited CLA would
not provide any mechanism to weaken the GPL.

Note, I am not a big fan of the GPL myself, but I don't think the CLA
ought to be positioned to undermine the GPL.

Of course, I'm not the final authority, but I think we can get the CLA
terms reviewed if Markus and I bring your feedback to the board.

Are there are other GRASS contributors that feel the same about this as
Glynn does?

Best regards,
-- 
---------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
I set the clouds in motion - turn up   | Frank Warmerdam, warmerdam at pobox.com
light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
and watch the world go round - Rush    | President OSGF, http://osgeo.org