

Joyent & Node.js - vamsee
http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs/browse_thread/thread/956a3431b1d9e937

======
wvl
Previously discussed 2 days ago: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1888628>

~~~
vamsee
Sorry about that, didn't notice that it was actually created - I was forwarded
to the earlier entry, so I thought my submission was ignored.

------
d4nt
_The only effective change for developers is that the contributor agreement
will be directed to Joyent rather than myself_

Does this mean Joyent now own the IP on Node.js?

~~~
mishmash
Yes. And it looks like the way things stand today, they have the exclusive
right under the CLA to re-license all that code under any other license as
they see fit.

~~~
fizx
I'll sell you a FPL'd (fizx public license) to node.js if you'd like. It's
basically the same, but I provide extensive support for running on android
devices embedded in juggling balls.

MIT License:

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person ... to sublicense
...

~~~
mishmash
I'm familiar with the MIT license, but thanks. So if the copyrights to new
code aren't important, why would Joyent seek to change that and want to "own"
the code now?

~~~
eli
I'm sure it makes it easier to market your services to the enterprise if you
are the "official" owner of the project.

It also means they could offer a version under a license that is not MIT
compatible, if they so desired.

------
Kilimanjaro
So node is like that little boat that could, then got a 400 hp engine and a 4
ton anchor.

