On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 01:50:08PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
On Thu, 23 Aug 2012, Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au> wrote:
IANAL either but it would seem to be a valid contract/agreement because both parties are getting something valuable out of the deal. FSF is getting the code and the contributor gets ongoing maintainence/inclusion of the code and the promise that it will always be free. that passes one of the most important hurdles for whether a contract is valid or not.
The contributor doesn't get ongoing maintainence. There is no guarantee that FSF ownership will make developers want to contribute to a project.
that's why i wrote "maintainence/inclusion". it's an inclusive or.
The main thing that would make me want to give code to the FSF is the fact that they will enforce the GPL. I don't want to be involved in legal cases. If someone flagrantly violated the GPL on one of my projects I'd seriously consider offering the code to the FSF if they would take legal action.
yep, that's another valuable thing that the code contributor gets in exchange for their code. craig -- craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au> BOFH excuse #40: not enough memory, go get system upgrade