Contribution agreements (Re: [sldev] What is the point offirstlook and giving feedback to LL)

[Lawson English]

Richard M Stallman wrote:
> Please forgive the delay in my response.  I have been very overloaded.
>
> Allowing the contributor of a change to use his own code
> however he wishes, even after he has contributed it to
> the original program, is the right thing to do.  But I think
> it is not enough to deal with this issue.
>
> The possibility I would like to avoid is that the developer might
> include my code in a non-free version while not including it in his
> comparable free version.  If he did that, then my contribution would
> primarily aid non-free software.  Even though I would be allowed to
> add it myself to a free fork -- supposing there is one -- that would
> not be enough to change the situation.
>
> So I think that we should call on such developers to make a promise
> such as, "If we include your code in a non-free version, we will
> include your code with equal functionality and technical advantahes in
> a free version, and that free version will have all the features and
> capabilities that are common to that non-free version and the free
> version you improved."
>
> With that promise, you will know that your code will contribute to a
> free version that isn't just demoware.
>   


I can see what you're saying, but consider the possibility that the 
commercial license, done by a third party, forks well away from the 
current free version. The example I have in mind is the Second Life 
OnRez viewer, which is the only commercial version of the Second Life 
viewer I'm aware of.

Many people prefer the interface of the OnRez viewer (which is also a 
free download used for the SL CSI:NY TV tie-in) but some features found 
in the latest open source viewer aren't found in the OnRez version and 
visa versa. It seems to me that your clause about equal functionality 
and so on might not apply in this case for various legitimate 
(non-deceptive) reasons.

Lawson