20after4
commented
5 years ago Disclaimer: I am an employee of the Wikimedia foundation, however, the views expressed below are strictly my own. Also I am not a lawyer, nor am I an expert on licensing, etc.
Ok with that out of the way, I first want to express that I really like what you've done with the compact. It seems like a really good compromise that could work for many. Also, as someone familiar with the Wikimedia foundation and the issues around growing the community of contributors that sustain MediaWiki software, I find it interesting though maybe not directly applicable to a community as complex as Wikimedia's.
Some aspects of the compact seem to parallel the reality of how responsibilities and rights are divided between the Wikimedia foundation (a business, even if non-profit) and the broader community of contributors. Specifically, the Wikimedia foundation owns trademarks related to the software and also maintains services and supporting infrastructure. As with your compact, the individual contributors to MediaWiki software each own the copyright to their contributions (no assignment as far as I am aware)
I don't think any of this really helps answer the questions raised in this issue but maybe it gets the discussion started? At least you might consider taking look at Wikimedia as a model for some things that work well (and unfortunately, some others that maybe don't work so well)
As written, this compact doesn't cover:
Do we need to?