[GRASSLIST:10813] Re: [GRASS5] FWD: [OSGeo-Discuss] Incubation Committee / Contributor Agreements]

[Wolf Bergenheim]

On Tue, 7 Mar 2006, Frank Warmerdam wrote:

> 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 haven't had time to contribute as much as I would, but I also support 
Glynn's view.

--Wolf

-- 

<:3 )---- Wolf Bergenheim ----( 8:>