Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote: [...] Technically, however, they can authorize any third party to distribite the stuff on whatever terms they like. They just can't do it themselves without "polluting" the [L]GPL "brand."
This is bordering on offtopic, and as I am not a significant contributor, I can't have a strong opinion here. However, I think consideration of copyright assignment (possibly on terms more amenable to people uninterested in controversial political causes) is worthwhile, as they provide a solution for the problems that Boost (and many other projects) has. Particularly in light of what is happening with SCO and IBM, I think many companies evaluating open source libraries are interested not only in reasonable licensing terms, but an assurance of proper code ownership. For the record, the recent FSF copyright assignment document I have a physical copy of requires all of FSF's assignees to obey the same re-licensing terms as the FSF. Perhaps earlier versions did not. I appreciate your comments, Aaron W. LaFramboise