[Interest] Contributor agreement rundown

[Nikos Chantziaras]

On 18/04/12 20:19, Till Oliver Knoll wrote:
>
>
> 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?

You are not required to merge them back.  You are only required to make 
them public so that other, if they so wish, can try to merge them.  Or 
not merge them but use them for themselves.

So that argument is moot.