bazaar-ng copyright policy

[Benno]

On Thu Apr 21, 2005 at 11:04:26 +0100, Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
>Aaron Bentley wrote:
>
>> I don't see why legal defence requires a single entity.  In fact, as I
>> understand it, gpl-violations.org has benefitted from the fact that
>> there's no single entity controlling Linux.  Instead of having to get
>> The Linux Consortium to commit to a GPL lawsuit, they only have to get a
>> single Linux contributor involved.
>
>Eben Moglen from the FSF said today at LCA that  linux would have been
>much better off w.r.t. SCO if they'd had something like this from every
>contributor. It was his comments that prompted me to ask Martin to
>follow this process, especially since we're hopeful that baz-ng might be
>considered for the kernel sooner rather than later, given the BK fiasco.
>
>> Oh, and I assume that we can just do the copyright thing once, and not
>> have to assign copyright every time we submit a nontrivial patch.
>
>Yes, and I'm happy to accept gpg-signed-mail rather than a paper trail.
>All it needs to say is that the code you are contributing is yours to
>contribute, and that you are happy for Canonical to share copyright and
>defend your copyright.

Is it shared copyright or a full copyright assignment? From Martin's
initial email I assumed the latter, but what you are saying here
indicates the former.  I'm much happier contributing under a scheme
where I still own the copyright on anything I contribute.

Cheers,

Benno