> Your typical corporate IP lawyer might feel queasy about the collective copyright aspect, but so much of the open source world works this way now... they can suffer in their jocks.
This is a bad attitude if you want buy-in from large organizations. If you're not worried about that, no problem, but if buy-in is your goal (and I'm sure it's Apple's goal here) you can't just tell potential contributors to "suffer in their jocks."
Sure, it's flippant, but do recall that the entire concept of open source absolutely terrified IP lawyers not that long ago (and in some cases, still does).
Lawyers who are too conservative to allow their company's developers to contribute to open source projects (that they don't own) have a problem. Open source is way beyond pussy-footing around just to make corporate lawyers feel comfortable.
And seriously, if Apple can do it, why can't they?
This comment doesn't make a lot of sense. The "corporate IP lawyers" being referred to would be Apple's own counsel, not those of "potential contributors".
This is a bad attitude if you want buy-in from large organizations. If you're not worried about that, no problem, but if buy-in is your goal (and I'm sure it's Apple's goal here) you can't just tell potential contributors to "suffer in their jocks."