So I take it there's actually no grant-back as in the FSF case? Then it's probably necessary to explain how the use of MPL or LGPL makes the absence of that a no real restriction.
I believe it would be simpler to have an FSF-style grant-back. That would probably feel more free for the contributor.
/ Martin Stjernholm, Roxen IS
Previous text:
2003-09-11 16:57: Subject: Re: IDA's policy on Pike contributions
Say, I wrote a module for Pike, it gets into "official" distribution, and basically IDA's claim means that this modules is now _their_, not mine.
The module doesn't "get" into the official districution. You would have to put it there yourself, after agreeing to the terms of CVS access. And then the module is owned by IDA, which IDA in turn distribute under MPL, GPL and LGPL. I can't honestly think of a single scenario when this isn't enough.
/ Martin Nilsson (ja till euro, nej till cent)