[Xorp-users] RFC: Explicitly note that new code contributions are copy-righted by the submitter.

[Bruce Simpson]

On 04/23/10 18:24, Ben Greear wrote:
> I propose to update the LICENSE file to explicitly note that contributions
> on or after today are copyright by the submitter unless otherwise specified
> in the commit message and/or committed code.
>
> This ensures that no single entity can re-license XORP or otherwise
> take changes in the public svn tree and use or relicense them in ways not compatible
> with the current license scheme (GPL, LGPL, other) without consent
> of all committers from today on.  I believe this will help make
> xorp stronger and it will certainly make me happier about committing
> my changes to the public svn tree.
>    

I'm not an IP lawyer, but: I'm afraid it does none of those things, 
other than make the limited use of the GPL herein, more explicit. FWIW 
NetBSD make it explicit that diff chunks are subject to their license.

How contract programmers are normally retained, in the wider world, is 
on a works-for-hire basis; their employer retains the copyright. So a 
side-effect of this change, would be to force the copyright situation to 
be made explicit, by 3rd parties who may seek to release code as part of 
the open-source project. If their code is new, they need not use the 
existing license.

If they merely use XORP, and do not re-distribute it, they are still 
free to use it however they like (including internal modification). 
Products constructed merely by the use of XORP, don't fall under the GPL.

I think it's a mistake to infer that a group of software developers, has 
any particular recognition in IP law, and I draw your attention to the 
GPL actually opening individual committers to risk, as it has no 
indemnity clause.

In any event, I believe that whilst keeping the copyright for your own 
changes is fine, and whilst the code may be redistributed under the 
terms of the GPLv2 and LGPL, the copyright holder for XORP as a whole is 
in fact entitled to relicense the code at any time.

However, the new owners of the XORP intellectual property, have not yet 
stepped forward.

So this proposed change is a no-op. I neither condone nor criticise it 
apart from the above.