> Well, he did have the additional complaint that, in addition to any legal problems > with relicensing, he considered a thorough audit of the code to be a huge time sink > without any real benefit to the project, and thought developers should be spending > that time improving emulation instead. With that in mind, it's hard to see Haze > spending lots of time sorting through several years of his code submissions, but > perhaps he would allow his code changes to be relicensed if others were already doing > the auditing.
I don't believe he really cares whether anyone spends their time auditing or not, he just wants to put people off auditing so they can't ask him to relicense or have his code removed.
It's not several years, we are talking about going back to before we used svn. However as changes require significant creative effort to attain a copyright claim, it should be quite easy for him to know what stuff he wrote from scratch and what stuff he did a few fixes on. The audit is going to have to involve cooperation, because even from svn you can't tell who wrote the code. I committed the turret tower changes, but I wouldn't claim copyright over them as I just added a hack to make the possibly bad chd work. If we get a good dump then that code will die.
I think what worries Haze is that the majority of his contributions won't be deemed as having a great enough creative effort.