> projects aimed at obnoxious licensing situations (examples being Qt and Java), and the projects have, on the face of it, failed to achieve their goals. The most recent use of this name looks like a variation on that theme
Jon, that is below your usual standard of fairness. Fortunately the rest of the article was up to your usual standards of fairness.
For what it is worth, I'm happy that they've done this work and I expect to make use of it in the future. The variant which seems closest to what the Tahoe-LAFS project has been doing so far is the one where "The contributor grants a broad license to the project, but retains ownership of the contribution." and "we can use it under any license we choose". It might be better to switch to "The contributor transfers ownership of the contribution to the project and gets, in return, a broad license for further use of it." and "we can use it under any license we choose", so that we (in this case the Tahoe-LAFS Software Foundation) have standing to sue people who use it without satisfying the licence.
By laying out the options like this (and by Jon's recounting of them in this article), it has helped me to think more clearly about what I want. Thanks!
Also, by having a widely-known, widely vetted agreement that we can point to it will facilitate communication between us and contributors about what each side wants. Thanks again!
And yes, both in the old way and the new way we would retain the ability to give or sell proprietary licences.
I know there seems to be a consensus among a certain circle of people that this is a terrible bad idea and/or evil, but I doubt that is the consensus among larger groups of people. I, for one, certainly don't agree to that.