[Bf-committers] GPL headers

D.J. Capelis blender at djc.people.sgalliance.com
Thu Jul 26 05:44:41 CEST 2007


On Thu, 2007-07-26 at 13:15 +1000, Campbell Barton wrote:
> >>   * The Original Code is Copyright (C) 2001-2002 by
> >> NaN Holding BV.
> >>   * All rights reserved.
> >>   *
> >>
> >> I dont mind giving my copyright to the blender
> >> foundation but its a bit 
> >> misleading to have this for new files.
> > 
> > Actually, NaN Holding BV isn't the same thing as the
> > Stiching Blender Foundation at all, it's the old NaN
> > copyright holders (which, if memory serves right still
> > holds the rights on the logo and name).
> 
> Yep, thats why I say its misleading, because the licence says the file 
> is the rights of a company that dosnt exist anymore,
> It should probably say something like "This code is Copyright (C) by the 
> Blender Foundation All rights reserved." - thats why I ask what to use 
> for original files?
> 
> > For original files, this isn't needed at all I'd say
> > (since in the context of this sentence, original code
> > refers to the code donated by NaN).
> > 
> >> In cases where we want to keep copyright can we do
> >> this? or is that 
> >> frowned upon?
> > 
> > Doesn't matter to me. In case of potential legal
> > battles (say, in case someone takes the code and
> > breaks the GPL), then it's harder for the Blender
> > Foundation to fight back if the copyrights are
> > fragmented (though not that much I'd guess, since
> > there aren't that many contributors). IIRC, that's the
> > main reason why the FSF ask people to relinquish their
> > copyrights to them for commited code (actually, they
> > suggest this for all GPL code, but that's just greedy
> > I'd say). In any case, I don't really care too much
> > either way, whether people want to keep their
> > individual copyrights or hand them over to the BF,
> > fine by me.
> relinquish it to who? - or just not write "Copyright by Me" into the header?
> 
> > I don't think there ever was an "official" BF stance
> > on the matter either.
> > 
> > Martin
> 
> The only difference I see in keeping the copyright is that the decision 
> to change the license is with the person who owns the copyright.
> 
> Say we make the move to GPL3 - if all the copyright is to the 
> BlenderFoundation, then the BlenderFoundation can make that move without 
> asking each dev if its ok to have their licence changed (though Im sure 
> there would be some discussion with devs ;) ).

Actually since we're all implicitly licensing our work to the BF as
GPLv2 or *later* this isn't the case.  This was in place before the
GPLv3 and we agreed to keep it this way.

In addition, I remember there actually being a stance on this.  Last I
checked Ton stated when we dropped the old BF license that new files
could in fact have whatever copyright notice the author wished.
(Assuming of course, that is was licensed as it always was.)

However, assigning to the BF is good too. :)

(And yes, I just got home and am rolling on the builds, sorry for the
delay.)



More information about the Bf-committers mailing list