Hi all,

Just to be absolutely sure before I go and potentially create more confusion by editing the wiki:

Now that the frontend source is Boost-licensed, we don't require copyright assignment anymore, right?

Best,
David
_______________________________________________
dmd-internals mailing list
dmd-internals@puremagic.com
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-internals

On 6/22/2014 3:42 AM, David Nadlinger via dmd-internals wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Just to be absolutely sure before I go and potentially create more confusion by editing the wiki:
>
> Now that the frontend source is Boost-licensed, we don't require copyright assignment anymore, right?

It's still a good idea, as I'm not sure what issues may come up about it in the future. We've had contributors disappear before, questions come up, and we were forced to abandon their contributions as a result.
_______________________________________________
dmd-internals mailing list
dmd-internals@puremagic.com
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-internals

On 22 Jun 2014, at 20:38, Walter Bright via dmd-internals wrote:
> It's still a good idea, as I'm not sure what issues may come up about it in the future. We've had contributors disappear before, questions come up, and we were forced to abandon their contributions as a result.

Putting aside all the other reasons why I think requiring copyright assignment now is a really bad idea:

1. What instance of troubles are you referring to, specifically?

2. How would a dubious copyright assignment give you any more security than licensing a contribution under Boost?

Also note that systematically requiring copyright assignment before merging a change on GitHub is not something we are currently doing. I was just not sure whether it is something you want to start doing.
_______________________________________________
dmd-internals mailing list
dmd-internals@puremagic.com
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-internals

On 6/22/2014 2:15 PM, David Nadlinger via dmd-internals wrote:
> On 22 Jun 2014, at 20:38, Walter Bright via dmd-internals wrote:
>> It's still a good idea, as I'm not sure what issues may come up about it in the future. We've had contributors disappear before, questions come up, and we were forced to abandon their contributions as a result.
>
> Putting aside all the other reasons why I think requiring copyright assignment now is a really bad idea:
>
> 1. What instance of troubles are you referring to, specifically?

Jascha Wetzel wrote a Windows debugger in D, for example. His license was incompatible, he disappeared, his project was abandoned as a result. Then there's the case of the Tango code, such as the excellent XML parser - can't be incorporated into dmd because of the license. All that value got abandoned; nobody benefited from it. What a waste.


>
> 2. How would a dubious copyright assignment give you any more security than licensing a contribution under Boost?

If issues come up that only the copyright holder can resolve, we will be completely unable to resolve them. For example, I needed assignments in order to change the license to Boost. If one major contributor had refused, then where would we be?


>
> Also note that systematically requiring copyright assignment before merging a change on GitHub is not something we are currently doing. I was just not sure whether it is something you want to start doing.


I don't think it's critical for smallish contributions, as they can be worked around if necessary. For larger ones, yes.

You say you're worried about something with this - can you explain? What's "really bad" about it?
_______________________________________________
dmd-internals mailing list
dmd-internals@puremagic.com
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-internals

Those are all problems with incompatible licenses, and boost is supposed to solve these.  Now that the frontend is boost, why do we still need copyright assignment?

I think for the frontend we're in good shape now without copyright assignment.

On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Walter Bright via dmd-internals <dmd-internals@puremagic.com> wrote:
>
> On 6/22/2014 2:15 PM, David Nadlinger via dmd-internals wrote:
>>
>> On 22 Jun 2014, at 20:38, Walter Bright via dmd-internals wrote:
>>>
>>> It's still a good idea, as I'm not sure what issues may come up about it in the future. We've had contributors disappear before, questions come up, and we were forced to abandon their contributions as a result.
>>
>>
>> Putting aside all the other reasons why I think requiring copyright assignment now is a really bad idea:
>>
>> 1. What instance of troubles are you referring to, specifically?
>
>
> Jascha Wetzel wrote a Windows debugger in D, for example. His license was incompatible, he disappeared, his project was abandoned as a result. Then there's the case of the Tango code, such as the excellent XML parser - can't be incorporated into dmd because of the license. All that value got abandoned; nobody benefited from it. What a waste.
>
>
>
>>
>> 2. How would a dubious copyright assignment give you any more security than licensing a contribution under Boost?
>
>
> If issues come up that only the copyright holder can resolve, we will be completely unable to resolve them. For example, I needed assignments in order to change the license to Boost. If one major contributor had refused, then where would we be?
>
>
>
>>
>> Also note that systematically requiring copyright assignment before merging a change on GitHub is not something we are currently doing. I was just not sure whether it is something you want to start doing.
>
>
>
> I don't think it's critical for smallish contributions, as they can be worked around if necessary. For larger ones, yes.
>
> You say you're worried about something with this - can you explain? What's "really bad" about it?
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmd-internals mailing list
> dmd-internals@puremagic.com
> http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-internals
_______________________________________________
dmd-internals mailing list
dmd-internals@puremagic.com
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-internals

On 6/22/2014 8:14 PM, Daniel Murphy wrote:
> Those are all problems with incompatible licenses, and boost is
> supposed to solve these.  Now that the frontend is boost, why do we
> still need copyright assignment?

Maybe, maybe not. I don't know what kind of issues will come up in the future, and how could I deal with it if major contributors are no longer available? What if there's some legal nit with Boost and it needs to be adjusted? GPL and BSD licenses have undergone revisions, would we want to get stuck forever with an obsolete Boost?

Like I said, we've already had this problem more than once - and the resolution was abandonment of valuable work.

>
> I think for the frontend we're in good shape now without copyright assignment.
>
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Walter Bright via dmd-internals
> <dmd-internals@puremagic.com> wrote:
>> On 6/22/2014 2:15 PM, David Nadlinger via dmd-internals wrote:
>>> On 22 Jun 2014, at 20:38, Walter Bright via dmd-internals wrote:
>>>> It's still a good idea, as I'm not sure what issues may come up about it
>>>> in the future. We've had contributors disappear before, questions come up,
>>>> and we were forced to abandon their contributions as a result.
>>>
>>> Putting aside all the other reasons why I think requiring copyright
>>> assignment now is a really bad idea:
>>>
>>> 1. What instance of troubles are you referring to, specifically?
>>
>> Jascha Wetzel wrote a Windows debugger in D, for example. His license was
>> incompatible, he disappeared, his project was abandoned as a result. Then
>> there's the case of the Tango code, such as the excellent XML parser - can't
>> be incorporated into dmd because of the license. All that value got
>> abandoned; nobody benefited from it. What a waste.
>>
>>
>>
>>> 2. How would a dubious copyright assignment give you any more security
>>> than licensing a contribution under Boost?
>>
>> If issues come up that only the copyright holder can resolve, we will be
>> completely unable to resolve them. For example, I needed assignments in
>> order to change the license to Boost. If one major contributor had refused,
>> then where would we be?
>>
>>
>>
>>> Also note that systematically requiring copyright assignment before
>>> merging a change on GitHub is not something we are currently doing. I was
>>> just not sure whether it is something you want to start doing.
>>
>>
>> I don't think it's critical for smallish contributions, as they can be
>> worked around if necessary. For larger ones, yes.
>>
>> You say you're worried about something with this - can you explain? What's
>> "really bad" about it?
>>
>> _

_______________________________________________
dmd-internals mailing list
dmd-internals@puremagic.com
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-internals

You don't need to deal with it in the future, because boost allows you to change to a more restrictive license if necessary.  eg We could change it to BSD or GPL _without_ needing copyright assignment.  This is only a problem if we want to remove restrictions, and there doesn't seem to be any point to doing that.

Also, AIUI we will not be able to change the license of phobos and druntime anyway, since there is no copyright assignment for those. We're 'stuck' with boost either way.

On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 3:34 PM, Walter Bright <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote:
>
> On 6/22/2014 8:14 PM, Daniel Murphy wrote:
>>
>> Those are all problems with incompatible licenses, and boost is supposed to solve these.  Now that the frontend is boost, why do we still need copyright assignment?
>
>
> Maybe, maybe not. I don't know what kind of issues will come up in the future, and how could I deal with it if major contributors are no longer available? What if there's some legal nit with Boost and it needs to be adjusted? GPL and BSD licenses have undergone revisions, would we want to get stuck forever with an obsolete Boost?
>
> Like I said, we've already had this problem more than once - and the resolution was abandonment of valuable work.
>
>
>>
>> I think for the frontend we're in good shape now without copyright assignment.
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Walter Bright via dmd-internals <dmd-internals@puremagic.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 6/22/2014 2:15 PM, David Nadlinger via dmd-internals wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 22 Jun 2014, at 20:38, Walter Bright via dmd-internals wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> It's still a good idea, as I'm not sure what issues may come up about
>>>>> it
>>>>> in the future. We've had contributors disappear before, questions come
>>>>> up,
>>>>> and we were forced to abandon their contributions as a result.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Putting aside all the other reasons why I think requiring copyright assignment now is a really bad idea:
>>>>
>>>> 1. What instance of troubles are you referring to, specifically?
>>>
>>>
>>> Jascha Wetzel wrote a Windows debugger in D, for example. His license was
>>> incompatible, he disappeared, his project was abandoned as a result. Then
>>> there's the case of the Tango code, such as the excellent XML parser -
>>> can't
>>> be incorporated into dmd because of the license. All that value got
>>> abandoned; nobody benefited from it. What a waste.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> 2. How would a dubious copyright assignment give you any more security than licensing a contribution under Boost?
>>>
>>>
>>> If issues come up that only the copyright holder can resolve, we will be
>>> completely unable to resolve them. For example, I needed assignments in
>>> order to change the license to Boost. If one major contributor had
>>> refused,
>>> then where would we be?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Also note that systematically requiring copyright assignment before
>>>> merging a change on GitHub is not something we are currently doing. I
>>>> was
>>>> just not sure whether it is something you want to start doing.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't think it's critical for smallish contributions, as they can be worked around if necessary. For larger ones, yes.
>>>
>>> You say you're worried about something with this - can you explain?
>>> What's
>>> "really bad" about it?
>>>
>>> _
>
>
_______________________________________________
dmd-internals mailing list
dmd-internals@puremagic.com
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-internals

Do you have a response for the existing precedents in which valuable work has been wasted?

More generally (and for everyone), and please don't take this the wrong way as it comes from someone who knows next to nothing about this: I see there's considerable discussion here; what is the larger issue that seems to go unstated? It's entirely fine to want to maintain copyright of one's work, but on the face of it OSS seems to be a poor vehicle for that.


Andrei

On 6/23/14, 3:42 AM, Daniel Murphy via dmd-internals wrote:
> You don't need to deal with it in the future, because boost allows you
> to change to a more restrictive license if necessary.  eg We could
> change it to BSD or GPL _without_ needing copyright assignment.  This
> is only a problem if we want to remove restrictions, and there doesn't
> seem to be any point to doing that.
>
> Also, AIUI we will not be able to change the license of phobos and
> druntime anyway, since there is no copyright assignment for those.
> We're 'stuck' with boost either way.
>
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 3:34 PM, Walter Bright <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 6/22/2014 8:14 PM, Daniel Murphy wrote:
>>>
>>> Those are all problems with incompatible licenses, and boost is
>>> supposed to solve these.  Now that the frontend is boost, why do we
>>> still need copyright assignment?
>>
>>
>> Maybe, maybe not. I don't know what kind of issues will come up in the
>> future, and how could I deal with it if major contributors are no longer
>> available? What if there's some legal nit with Boost and it needs to be
>> adjusted? GPL and BSD licenses have undergone revisions, would we want to
>> get stuck forever with an obsolete Boost?
>>
>> Like I said, we've already had this problem more than once - and the
>> resolution was abandonment of valuable work.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I think for the frontend we're in good shape now without copyright
>>> assignment.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Walter Bright via dmd-internals
>>> <dmd-internals@puremagic.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 6/22/2014 2:15 PM, David Nadlinger via dmd-internals wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 22 Jun 2014, at 20:38, Walter Bright via dmd-internals wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's still a good idea, as I'm not sure what issues may come up about
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> in the future. We've had contributors disappear before, questions come
>>>>>> up,
>>>>>> and we were forced to abandon their contributions as a result.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Putting aside all the other reasons why I think requiring copyright
>>>>> assignment now is a really bad idea:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. What instance of troubles are you referring to, specifically?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jascha Wetzel wrote a Windows debugger in D, for example. His license was
>>>> incompatible, he disappeared, his project was abandoned as a result. Then
>>>> there's the case of the Tango code, such as the excellent XML parser -
>>>> can't
>>>> be incorporated into dmd because of the license. All that value got
>>>> abandoned; nobody benefited from it. What a waste.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 2. How would a dubious copyright assignment give you any more security
>>>>> than licensing a contribution under Boost?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If issues come up that only the copyright holder can resolve, we will be
>>>> completely unable to resolve them. For example, I needed assignments in
>>>> order to change the license to Boost. If one major contributor had
>>>> refused,
>>>> then where would we be?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Also note that systematically requiring copyright assignment before
>>>>> merging a change on GitHub is not something we are currently doing. I
>>>>> was
>>>>> just not sure whether it is something you want to start doing.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't think it's critical for smallish contributions, as they can be
>>>> worked around if necessary. For larger ones, yes.
>>>>
>>>> You say you're worried about something with this - can you explain?
>>>> What's
>>>> "really bad" about it?
>>>>
>>>> _
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> dmd-internals mailing list
> dmd-internals@puremagic.com
> http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-internals
>
_______________________________________________
dmd-internals mailing list
dmd-internals@puremagic.com
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-internals

I think the issue is that some future developers will not contribute. Some people just don't want to give up all rights to their work.

I don't know that I care about copyright assignment for DMD either way. Boost is certainly a very permissive license, and I don't see us moving to an incompatible one in the future. On the other hand, you don't know what will happen in the future. Someone future court challenge can make our version of boost unusable for some entire bloc of users, and then we would be stuck. The likelihood of this latter case is astronomically low I think.

As an aside, the tango XML library is not something that we could "just incorporate", so I don't think that's a fair example. It requires tango's entire stream system. And in general, the author of that module had proven not to be amenable to having any of his code in phobos. I think the copyright assignment issue there is moot. Also, note that the requirement on the wiki is for DMD only. It does not specify phobos/druntime contributions have the requirement, and as far as I know, we do not have that authorization from all phobos/druntime contributors.

Is there some compromise we can attain that allows updating the license to some future version of Boost without assigning full copyright to Digital Mars?

-Steve

On Jun 23, 2014, at 11:15 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu via dmd-internals <dmd-internals@puremagic.com> wrote:

> Do you have a response for the existing precedents in which valuable work has been wasted?
> 
> More generally (and for everyone), and please don't take this the wrong way as it comes from someone who knows next to nothing about this: I see there's considerable discussion here; what is the larger issue that seems to go unstated? It's entirely fine to want to maintain copyright of one's work, but on the face of it OSS seems to be a poor vehicle for that.
> 
> 
> Andrei


_______________________________________________
dmd-internals mailing list
dmd-internals@puremagic.com
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-internals

On 6/23/2014 8:15 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Do you have a response for the existing precedents in which valuable work has been wasted?
>
> More generally (and for everyone), and please don't take this the wrong way as it comes from someone who knows next to nothing about this: I see there's considerable discussion here; what is the larger issue that seems to go unstated? It's entirely fine to want to maintain copyright of one's work, but on the face of it OSS seems to be a poor vehicle for that.
>
>
> Andrei

I'd like to know that, too. What is the difficulty with copyright assignment? I can't address that if I don't know what bothers you and David about it.
_______________________________________________
dmd-internals mailing list
dmd-internals@puremagic.com
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-internals