-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Call me the anarchist of the pack, but what are other organizations
> doing, like *BSD, debian, or even other open-sourced projects as far as
> copyrights go? Why not just keep it simple and adopt the mechanism used
> by the upstream linux kernel team (which based on gregkh's description,
> seems to fit us the best, imho).
The reason I suggested this dual solution is that this is how the FSF
does it, although I'm not saying it's perfect. And while it is a bit
more maintenance, it seems like it offers the most benefits for both
sides. The foundation gets to protect everything that people are willing
to give it, and people who are unwilling to assign the copyright bear
the brunt of any infringements personally.
> As it currently stands, it seems every idea proposed so far has a flaw
> or flaw(s) that prohibits, limits, excludes, or annoys one or more of
> our devs. Surely this situtation, or a variant, has been tackled before,
> so I'm sure somewhere out there, there is something workable for us
> (possibly with minor modifications).
What's the flaw with this, again? I must've missed it.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
email@example.com mailing list