After writing this message I think this isn't a Krita-specific discussion, but I want to bring it up here to see what you all think before I talk about it elsewhere.<br>I think the FSF summarizes my concern better than I could, so please read this fragment:<br>
<br><a href="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AssignCopyright">http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AssignCopyright</a><br><br>Krita has a large number of contributors to many different files. Defending it in a court would be very difficult in its current state, so at the moment the enforcement of its license is just based on honor. I see many GPL programs pile up contributors, each owning a little piece of the software, eventually making the license hard to enforce against an hypothetical evil re-licenser (if he's evil, honor won't work!).<br>
<br>In that sense, isn't using a copyleft license a moot point after all?, It only places restrictions on people willing to respect it, not on the hypothetical evil corporate users wanting to steal the code. A non-copyleft license would be just as functional and more convenient to those willing to respect it, in all cases except when there is few and well identified copyright owners to a program (or just 1, for example an institution, like the FSF).<br>
<br>On a sidenote:<br>I remember Cyrille mentioned something about countries in Europe where a corporation couldn't own copyright over something. If you are reading this: what countries are those?.<br><br>