That's something that I think we've mentioned  before - technically I think even historically we've agreed it would need agreement from copyright holders.

At the same time, before we accept a patch to mantis, we should be checking that:
a) the author of the patch is willing for the code to be used under the GPL
b) transferring copyright to 'the mantis team' [which I'd probably be inclined to go as far to say is probably an undefined entity]. It is the Mantis Team that is listed as the copyright owner in each file.

Some of the larger projects then have agreements people need to accept before they can add code etc etc etc etc.

If I go to google and read http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html :

"And despite the broad right of distribution conveyed by the GPL, enforcement of copyright is generally not possible for distributors: only the copyright holder or someone having assignment of the copyright can enforce the license. If there are multiple authors of a copyrighted work, successful enforcement depends on having the cooperation of all authors."

"In order to make sure that all of our copyrights can meet the recordkeeping and other requirements of registration, and in order to be able to enforce the GPL most effectively, FSF requires that each author of code incorporated in FSF projects provide a copyright assignment, and, where appropriate, a disclaimer of any work-for-hire ownership claims by the programmer's employer. That way we can be sure that all the code in FSF projects is free code, whose freedom we can most effectively protect, and therefore on which other developers can completely rely."

That to me suggests that it would be impossible for us to enforce a gpl/copyright issue against mantis:

a) All authors? - "If there are multiple authors of a copyrighted work, successful enforcement depends on having the cooperation of all authors.""  

b) who/what is "Mantis Team" that currently owns the copyright

c) "provide a copyright assignment, and, where appropriate, a disclaimer of any work-for-hire ownership" -> we have those copyright assignments right? :)





On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 8:24 PM, Robert Munteanu <robert.munteanu@gmail.com> wrote:
> 4) Didn't we want to move away from the GPL to a different license gradually
> - did we ever pick said license?  From memory I thought John added some
> stuff to mantis under MIT at one point.

IANAL, but my understanding is that if we want to relicense the code (
Apache-style licenses seem to be in favour these days ) we need to get
the agreement of _all_ the copyright holders. We can't simply change
it.

Robert

--
http://robert.muntea.nu/

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AlienVault Unified Security Management (USM) platform delivers complete
security visibility with the essential security capabilities. Easily and
efficiently configure, manage, and operate all of your security controls
from a single console and one unified framework. Download a free trial.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/alienvault_d2d
_______________________________________________
mantisbt-dev mailing list
mantisbt-dev@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mantisbt-dev