Here you can discuss ReactOS related topics.
Moderator: Moderator Team
- Posts: 114
- Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 11:21 am
- Location: Spain ← Europe ← Planet Earth ← Milky Way ← Universe
Swyter wrote:ask every past developer for permission
... Are contributors not required to hand over copyright of their contributions to the ReactOS Foundation? That's really bad. I hope that's not the case.
Well, you can't change the copyright of external code like Wine, but you could still change the kernel's license.
You can't waive copyright, but the license you put on your work takes care of reuse and liability.
So, to make it short and sweet; every author would have to agree, or, their individual work would have to be rewritten from scratch.
Apart from that, I think that MIT/BSD are okay for small-ish helper projects where you don't want to complicate yourself (while covering your legal ass), and GPL works great for big projects that take a lot of time, that way you can force them to contribute back their time/code if they make use of your work, automatically reaping back any enhancements.
GPLv3 is even more viral in the sense that it also forces them to grant you access to every piece needed for it to work as they released it in binary form (Tivoization).
External patch contributor for ux/user-mode/l10n/winapi. Sometimes I fix a bit of everything everywhere.
- Release Engineer
- Posts: 3379
- Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 8:16 pm
The situation for ReactOS is the same as with the Linux kernel, Linux contributors are not required to sign over copyright of their work to some central entity. It's also why the Linux kernel itself would be effectively impossible to relicense as GPLv3 since, good luck tracking down and getting agreement by all of the many contributors over the years to make the change. Linus himself is also personally opposed to the GPLv3 so, it's a complete nonstarter.
ReactOS has no need to be BSD or whatever, the way we employ the GPL ensures that the core operating system itself will always remain open and free (short of people committing GPL violations outright), while also providing a great deal of leeway for third parties that want to distribute ReactOS with software they've written to keep their own code closed. Nothing that's intrinsically part of ReactOS can be closed, but an application that gets bundled into ReactOS by said third party has no requirement to be opened up. I consider that as the best balance one can achieve, protecting your own rights while not forcing your ideals down other people's throats.
- Posts: 391
- Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2014 8:54 pm
I see. I just thought dual-licensing as BSD would be more attractive to corporations which would get ReactOS more publicity and coverage. I don't really have any arguments for BSD outside of personal affinity, haha. I just wanted to see what the developers thought of it.
I'm really surprised the ReactOS Foundation doesn't require handing over ownership of contributions, seeing as how legally inclined the project is.
- Posts: 1050
- Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2004 1:36 pm
- Location: Italy
Just mailed author to ask is direct partecipation to the thread.
»Forward Agency NPO
In progress we (always) trust.
Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot], Semrush [Bot] and 3 guests