> Well, it's actually not so simple. > > In cases where there is a clear, obvious way of doing something (like your example), > or in cases where there really is only one way to write the code, the answers come > down to the fine details of copyright law. See > http://www.ifosslr.org/ifosslr/article/view/30/64 for some interesting analysis, > specifically the "Software Code Not Subject To Copyright" section.
Treat it as that simple. The courts would complicate it enough for you. However from many court rulings it is more complex. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison_test Basically with code as we know you can transform it a bit and get the same result yet it looks radically different. Also in the simple case I have we both have claims to part of the code. Now I may be the 'owner'. However you also own a bit but a chunk copied from me. Its a subtle difference and easy to confuse who 'owns' it. Now as the owner however it does not mean I can take your code and use it either. We would have to come to an understanding. Usually in open source projects that understanding is the license.
In this case it would only be fair if you made a good faith attempt to get everyone to say what they want (which it looks like you are doing). As you said your existing license is probably not that great and assigning ownership to a non entity. In the case of mame/mess it is a huge mess (heh heh) as it is not entirely clear who owns what bits. I know some have suggested putting it to a vote. But even that may not be enough. I would also suggest 1 license (whichever one you pick) and not dual. If you do dual you may end up with this same argument down the road again or with parts of your own code you can not mix together.