From: Karl Kurbjun <kkurbjun_at_gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 14:07:36 -0600

I would not want to blindly assign my copyright to any one organization
without regard to our rights. I would prefer to keep my freedom with the
code while I am functional mentally and alive.

On Ray's arguments: I do not think that relicensing would ever be a
possibility unless we had our own copyright holding entity - I doubt that
the FSF would ever agree to let us relicense under anything but the GPLv3 or
above. I am sure there would also be plenty of headaches obtaining
agreements with all the other projects that are used in Rockbox.

There would be an even more limited possibility of Rockbox being used
commercially with the GPLv3. I personally would like to see Rockbox used
commercially (in the off chance that it ever occurs). Even if we don't see
any profit from a commercial project it would still be a showcase of our
work - it's not like we're making money off it now. Brian's point is valid
and we would still receive code contributions even if a device was tivoized
not to mention that we are already having to break into each players
protections that we create a port for. So what's the loss if it happens? I
do not see the benefits of moving to a more restrictive license for
(currently) 1 potential project that is using the GPLv3. In that single
case there is still a GPLv2 version of the software that can be used.

-Karl

On 9/11/07, Bryan Childs <godeater_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 9/11/07, Matt Andrew <7dev7mza_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> > If I recall correctly, if you want the FSF to host your code, they
> > want you to sign the copyright over to them (to avoid situations like
> > this for them in the future).
> >
>
> Given that's what we WANT to do - this isn't an issue ;)
>
Received on 2007-09-11