Policy for contributions to www.kde.org

[Jason Bainbridge]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 21:04, Waldo Bastian wrote:
> I don't think such "implied" licenses work very well. I have seen code in
> KDE CVS without a license header that suddenly got stamped with a
> mickey-mouse BSD-ish license by its author. (Grep for "Alex Z") Apart from
> that I think it creates the impression that all files are indeed under a
> certain license even while in fact the actual copyright holder never gave
> his/her permission for that. Think of the company logos that are in CVS and
> that are most likely "All rights reserved".
>
> That said, I agree with you that having only one acceptable license would
> the simplest. It's just that I think that every file should state its
> license if you actually want to be able to claim rights based on that
> license.

I think probably the best way to proceed given that we can control pretty 
tightly who has write access to kde-www that all documents, scripts and 
images are licensed under the GPL unless explicitly stated otherwise and then 
we would have a list of acceptable licenses that could be used instead.

I can't see it being terriblly feasible that we include a license statement in 
each and every file that is committed, especially as it means it couldn't 
just be mentioned in the header of every page it would have to mentioned in 
every single page.

So I forsee that the approval process for a CVS account with write access to 
kde-www, would involve the user agreeing that all commits performed by 
themselves would fall under the GPL license unless explicitly stated 
otherwise and then it would have to be something like a BSD style license or 
the FDL.

Thoughts?

Regards,
Jason
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE+OTp9+8siRMuKcRwRAt9WAJ49I0JKkqEGrrTObVAgAT/lXed8ewCgl/5W
Vk+mL6DJvKagHsuWUbXPs7w=
=UycT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----