[Interest] Contributor agreement rundown

[Till Oliver Knoll]

Am 18.04.2012 um 15:38 schrieb Nikos Chantziaras <realnc at gmail.com>:

> ...  What I find problematic is transforming said code from open to 
> closed source, thus allowing others to modify it without giving back the 
> modifications.

As has been mentioned already in this thread it is impractical to develop bug fixes (features maybe) in the commercial version - /paid/ by a customer who wants that fixed/implemented - and /not/ merging them back into the "main stream" (open source).

So in my opinion this is a give-and-take situation: the "closed/commercial world gets changes "for no money" from the "open world" (and yes, with all the contractual fine print and the risk to transmogrify these changes into a locked box). In practise however the "closed development" will flow back into the "open world" sooner or later, for practical reasons outlined above. And hey: also for "no money" :)

Win-win, no? 

Cheers, Oliver