[serf]

a lot of contributors/developers are bothered by the fact that they have to play ball with copyright laws, at all.

it's a fact of life for developers with projects anywhere near the GNU-scape that if you don't GNU it, you'll catch a lot of hatred, even worse if you choose to avoid licensing all together -- and gods help you if you choose a tongue-in-cheek licensing agreement like WTFPL.

at the end of the day a lot of people just want to contribute meaningfully to a project that they use and enjoy, but the headache of licensing and catching flak by choosing the wrong one (and since all the communities have opposing thoughts, they're all the wrong one to certain folks), it just becomes easy to 'forget to contribute' -- especially when your patch or whatever is working fine locally and there is little practical incentive to catch that much heat.

I think the legalese issues turns a lot of would-be contributors into local-patcher type developers, and then they leave for greener pastures once what they needed patched is on their own machine -- especially for projects like emacs where 90 percent of development is going to be towards extensions.

...and I say all this from a position of love and admiration for GNU and the FSF.

[nine_k]

A cheeky license, or, worse, no license at all is a potential hole for a lawsuit. That is, of time and money wasted, and of the project being at risk.

I see why you might go with Apache, or MIT, or even straight public domain licenses. But as a maintainer, I would not accept a contribution which is not properly licensed, or which is licensed in a way not compatible with the project's license. Usually such a contribution is less valuable than the rest of the project, so there's no point to introduce a real legal risk of project's closure for the sake of such a contribution.

[downerending]

I can relate. Used to be a hardcore GNU fan, but these days I'm probably closer to sqlite thinking (public domain, but work hard to avoid contamination).

As for contributions, presumably GNU wants ownership, but do they have a problem with assigning back what amounts to public domain rights to the author?

And I suppose, for most contributions, does it really matter? The awful truth is that I can't think of anything I've ever written that had freestanding value, as opposed to value as an enhancement to something else.

[aspaceman]

Yeah I completely agree. It's like, I agree with GNU and the FSF, but that doesn't mean I'm as strict as they are. I want to contribute to MIT, Apache, and BSD licensed projects as well, or I want to just not think about it and work on some project that has no licensing info whatsoever.

But (some definitely not all) folks are pretty all or nothing. There's a lot of jerk developers on the net though, maybe it's better to just ignore them?

[Koshkin]

> love and admiration

I don't know about that, I hate agendas. A hammer does not have one, and that does not make it a less useful tool.

[ChristianBundy]

> A hammer does not have [an agenda], and that does not make it a less useful tool.

Sure, but by default all software has a copyright agenda built in. We can remove copyright, but there are two approaches:

- Remove copyright so that anyone can use your code, but then they can re-add copyright to your code and sue other people for violating their copyright.

- Remove copyright so that anyone can use your code and ensure that nobody can re-add copyright to your code.

I used to be in the former camp, but I've slowly moved to the latter.

[Teknoman117]

It's kinda why I like the Mozilla license (MPL). Anyone can freely use (leech even) on the project, but if they make improvements or changes to the project they have to share. It also doesn't try to control how the consumer of the project is allowed to deploy such software either.

[aidenn0]

A hammer is not made up of sentient beings who have moral obligations.

[downerending]

As far as you know...

[aidenn0]

Now that is a comment living up to a username...