On Aug 31, 2007, at 4:48 PM, Thomas Barregren wrote:
To avoid this sort of GPL Hell, we have very specific terms on which we work with clients:
(1) The client owns the work we do specifically for them.
(2) The client licenses .module files and their dependencies back to us under the GPL, version 2, and all future versions as published by the FSF.
The terms of (2) mean their internal staff can contribute to the project, but the final working modules are licensed back to us in a GPL-clean way that allows us to return the work to the community.
The other way around works as well. You can keep the intellectual property rights yourself and license the software under GPL to your customer.
Does it? That's the real bone of contention in this thread, at least for me and I suspect not a few others. I guess that whether licensing the result of consulting/development work that is *not* work-for-hire constitutes "distribution." Laura