3 ms·
It sounds like the .NET Foundation didn't feel they owned enough of the copyright to do that, which would be why the article talks about the .NET Foundation now
by WorldMaker 5y ago
It sounds like the .NET Foundation didn't feel they owned enough of the copyright to do that, which would be why the article talks about the .NET Foundation now (too late) doing what Open Source Foundations do as a base principal: requiring the assignment of copyright/ownership/CLAs to control/avoid relicensing. Asking now makes them seem like jerks, but if they had asked before and made it a policy from the beginning they would have avoided some of the root causes of this mess. (This a harsh lesson that just about every major Open Source Foundation has faced.)
- achandlerwhite 5y agoAre you sure they are requiring copyright assignment? I recently had my project included under the contribution model where I retain the copyright. The website wording was ambiguous on the .NET Foundation page about this option so I created a PR to clarify that there was a contribution model in addition to the assignment model and the PR was promptly accepted and went public: See assignment and contribution models: https://dotnetfoundation.org/projects/submit https://dotnetfoundation.org/projects/submit The word in the GitHub issues discussions is that they are working with their lawyers to clarify, but as of right now the contribution model is an option.
- WorldMaker 5y agoThat's one of the complaints in the article that they were about to. It seems like the discussion is ongoing. I appreciate the clarification.