5 ms·
A good, recent article about contributor vs. participant agreements. (Also a good primer on the subject) http://opensource.com/law/10/9/copyright-aggregation h
by obiefernandez 16y ago
A good, recent article about contributor vs. participant agreements. (Also a good primer on the subject)
http://opensource.com/law/10/9/copyright-aggregation http://opensource.com/law/10/9/copyright-aggregation
- jarin 16y agoIt seems like the sole reason for aggregating copyright in this manner is to be able to dual-license the source code to companies. So basically the community is more than welcome to help improve Diaspora (and by releasing at such an early Alpha stage, it's all but certain that large amounts, if not the majority of the code will be written by the community), but only Diaspora has the right to make any money off of it.
- mindcrime 16y ago> but only Diaspora has the right to make any money off of it. That doesn't follow. Anybody can take the AGPL'd codebase and make money off of it. It's not necessary to distribute something as closed source in order to make money, ya know. That said, I hate the AGPL, simply because I disagree with trying to redefine "providing a service using Software X" as "distributing Software X." I'd have preferred to see them go with the plain old GPL, if they wanted a "viral" license. But whatever... it's their project.
- jarin 16y agoI'd be ok with the regular GPL at this point.