[DGD] Phantasmal's contributor policy/legal arse covering

[Shentino]

On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 2:17 PM, Noah Gibbs <noah_gibbs at yahoo.com> wrote:

I was kinda hoping you'd have something to say.
>
>  I agree with others that this doesn't really add anything useful to the existing GPL.  I'd worry, actually, that this may conflict with the terms of the GPL if the "Phantasmal Copyright" includes the additional clause you added.  GPL is very picky about how you can restrict rights of redistribution going forward.  So it's not clear that this is legal.

Interesting point.

Info:  The contributor policy is just that, a policy, that people
would agree to when they join the project as a developer.  The
copyright and license itself is pure AGPLv3, and once code (provided
it's legal) has been contributed, it enjoys the AGPLv3's provisions.
Violation of the policy wouldn't be copyright infringement per se,
just a bad contribution to the SF "version" of phantasmal.

I'll ask FSF/GNU a few questions...it sounds like an interesting case.

Since phantasmal was public domain before I slipped the AGPLv3 onto
it, I doubt I'd run into problems.

It was more of a signpost to ward off someone slipping illegal code
into phantasmal (accidentally OR maliciously), and us getting taken to
court by the real owner of said code.  It wouldn't have restricted how
people could actually modify/distribute phantasmal itself, only how
they interact with the project while on SF.

I also just remembered that the v3 of the AGPL already has clauses to
cover patents, so my additions may even have been redundant anyway :P

>
>  I'd go back to straight-up GPL if I were you, since that leaves us 100% in the clear for GPL terms -- and I agree with others that the additional "agree to remedy"-type terms you added are unlikely to do us good in any probable situation.
>
>  And yes, a large corporation could hose us easily no matter what, in the sense that you can sue anybody for anything in the US, and the legal fees to defend are generally prohibitive for most folks.  That's not unique to Phantasmal, or to source code -- it's pretty much a fact of existence in the US (and I assume at least some other countries).  But realistically, nobody stands to gain from having us remove the code (which is pretty much all they could demand of us), so it's unlikely to ever be an issue.

Thanks for the feedback.