Code review comment for lp://staging/~denys.duchier/bzr/bzr.ssl

Martin Pool <email address hidden> writes:

> My personal (ianal) opinion is that anything we need people to do, we
> should do atomically with them making a particular contribution, and
> then not ask for or count on anything more in the future.

I concur.

> Clause 6: Bazaar will always be free, but we do want to retain the
> option to defend its copyright/patent status, to adapt to changes in
> free software licence practice, and to give a proprietary commercial
> licence for GPL-averse users. We could state this more clearly. I
> realize not everyone will agree with dual-licencing but to me it seems
> like a nice consequence of the GPL, modeled fairly successfully by
> other companies. (We have not actually done any of these yet.)

It should be stated clearly. I am fine with dual-licensing; that's a
fair deal for supporting the development of free software.

> I think there are lots of people who will sign a reasonable assignment
> agreement but who won't sign an overbroad or vague one.

so do I. I suspect that what is taking time is clause 7, which isn't
particularly relevant for most people. why not publish an updated
version of the agreement, with clauses 5 & 6 fixed, and allow
contributors to update their earlier agreement by signing a new version
whenever one is published if they so choose? Such an arrangement would
be future-proof and would permit greater reactivity through small
incremental improvements.

--Denys