This sidesteps your direct question a bit, but I thought the preceding discussion had already concluded that a back grant system would give the contributor the wanted rights to his work. Is there any point in continuing a "why? - why not the other way? - why?" thread?
If we are to implement a generic back grant system, it is much, much easier to implement it centrally and in the exact same fashion for each and every present and future developer of Pike, than to have them each arrange their own way of defering or otherwise transfering the rights to their contributions to IDA.
It would probably also mean that each individual party's agreement would be handled under local juristiction by their own law system. Such a system would be doomed bog down and die under its own weight, making the administrative burden of even adding a single developer tough, let alone all present developers. It would become an immense struggle we just don't have the resources to execute.
/ Johan Sundström, Lysator
Previous text:
2003-09-12 00:55: Subject: Re: IDA's policy on Pike contributions
On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 12:28:09AM +0200, Martin Baehr wrote:
i am not sure this is enough. (otherwise the FSF would handle it this way too.
Not necessary. They may have their own reasons not to do so. In any case, if IDA can give me a back-grant, why I can't do the same to IDA?
Regards, /Al
/ Brevbäraren