On 27 Jun 2006 19:04:27 +0200, Lex Spoon <lex at cc.gatech.edu> wrote:
> Oops, my previous message counted authorship in a 3.7u1 image.  Here
> are the counts for 3.9 full the counts.  Congratulations to Andreas
> for surpassing the "undated" entries.  :)
>
It's an interesting list, but legally doesn't say a lot I think. The
problem of course is that when you're employed (as a programmer), the
default assumption is that the property rights of any code you write
belongs with the employer
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_for_hire). And as you don't know
whether code was or wasn't written during evening hours, to be on the
safe side one would need to have a statement by the employer either to
the effect that the license change is ok or that the work is not
regarded as being the property of the employer (for an example, see
the boilerplate text attached to the GPL -
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html#SEC4).

For example, while Squeak Central has always stated that they were
careful to separate proprietary code from public code during their
stint at Disney, it was never stated that Disney was not the owner of
the public code. So we have to assume they are, which means that for
any of the work done by any SqC member during that time we'd need a
license grant under the APSL from Disney, not the person who has
his/her initials on the code.

Regards,

Cees