* Thomas Goirand:
> On 12/07/2012 05:39 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> The FSF can release your code under permissive free software licenses
> Can you explain how this is possible?
As far as I know, the FSF is not contractually obliged to license
contributors under copyleft licenses only.
--
To
On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 07:03:23PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 12/05/2012 06:15 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > I understand that concern and recognize that this is a not-uncommon
> > sentiment among Debian folks; this very closely parallels the question of
> > whether one is willing to release
On 12/07/2012 05:39 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> The FSF can release your code under permissive free software licenses
Can you explain how this is possible?
I wont trust such a strong statement just because someone
wrote it on debian-devel ...
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ
* Ian Jackson:
> Barry Warsaw writes ("Re: Contributor agreements and copyright assignment
> (was Re: Really, about udev, not init sytsems)"):
>> FTR: http://www.canonical.com/contributors
>
> That allows Canonical to make proprietary forks of the code (eg, to
&g
On 12/05/2012 06:15 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I understand that concern and recognize that this is a not-uncommon
> sentiment among Debian folks; this very closely parallels the question of
> whether one is willing to release software under a BSD license - or the MPL
> - vs. the GPL. But while s
Russ Allbery writes:
> Bjørn Mork writes:
>
>> IANAL, but I believe you are wrong there. You give them much wider
>> rights than this by assigning the copyright to the FSF. The copyright
>> owner is free to relicense the work in any way they want.
>
> Have you see the copyright assignment contr
On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 12:42:33PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Bjørn Mork writes:
>
> > IANAL, but I believe you are wrong there. You give them much wider
> > rights than this by assigning the copyright to the FSF. The copyright
> > owner is free to relicense the work in any way they want.
>
On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 06:42:37PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Barry Warsaw writes ("Re: Contributor agreements and copyright assignment
> (was Re: Really, about udev, not init sytsems)"):
> > FTR: http://www.canonical.com/contributors
> That allows Canonical to make
On 2012-12-04 12:42:33 -0800 (-0800), Russ Allbery wrote:
[...]
> The main issue for some of us is not so much the ethical
> objections to these sorts of agreements but rather the fact that
> our employers flatly are not interested in signing anything of the
> sort, ever, with anyone. Much of my fr
On Dec 04, 2012, at 12:42 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
>The main issue for some of us is not so much the ethical objections to
>these sorts of agreements but rather the fact that our employers flatly
>are not interested in signing anything of the sort, ever, with anyone.
>Much of my free software work
Bjørn Mork writes:
> IANAL, but I believe you are wrong there. You give them much wider
> rights than this by assigning the copyright to the FSF. The copyright
> owner is free to relicense the work in any way they want.
Have you see the copyright assignment contract that you make with the FSF?
Ian Jackson writes:
> Barry Warsaw writes ("Re: Contributor agreements and copyright assignment
> (was Re: Really, about udev, not init sytsems)"):
>> FTR: http://www.canonical.com/contributors
>
> That allows Canonical to make proprietary forks of the code
On Dec 04, 2012, at 06:42 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
>That allows Canonical to make proprietary forks of the code (eg, to
>engage in the dual licensing business model). This is very
>troublesome for me; it's too asymmetric a relationship.
Not to diminish your own concerns, but it doesn't bother me.
On Sun, Dec 02, 2012 at 05:49:43PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> The answer, as it happens, is the very terms of the FSF's copyright
> assignment, which ensures the work remains available under a copyleft
> license. *That* is the gold standard for copyright assignment, by which
> other copyright
Barry Warsaw writes ("Re: Contributor agreements and copyright assignment (was
Re: Really, about udev, not init sytsems)"):
> FTR: http://www.canonical.com/contributors
That allows Canonical to make proprietary forks of the code (eg, to
engage in the dual licensing business model).
On Dec 01, 2012, at 07:21 AM, Clint Byrum wrote:
>Just any FYI, Canonical no longer requires copyright assignment in their
>CLA. You are still giving Canonical an unlimited perpetual license on the
>code, but you retain your own copyrights.
FTR: http://www.canonical.com/contributors
with embedde
Tollef Fog Heen writes ("Re: Contributor agreements and copyright assignment"):
> Wouter Verhelst
> > Personally, I'm not comfortable signing off my copyright to the FSF, for
> > the very same reason I'm not comfortable signing off copyright to
> > Canon
On Sun, Dec 02, 2012 at 05:49:43PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> The answer, as it happens, is the very terms of the FSF's copyright
> assignment, which ensures the work remains available under a copyleft
> license. *That* is the gold standard for copyright assignment, by which
> other copyright
On Sun, Dec 02, 2012 at 11:58:55AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> >> The FSF is bound by its bylaws.
> > So are most corporations.
> Depending on how much you trust US law (and depending on the state in
> which the non-profit is formed), there is a fairly substantial difference.
> Board members of
Wouter Verhelst writes:
> On Sat, Dec 01, 2012 at 10:24:53AM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
>> ]] Wouter Verhelst
>>
>> [...]
>>> Personally, I'm not comfortable signing off my copyright to the FSF,
>>> for the very same reason I'm not comfortable signing off copyright to
>>> Canonical: while bo
On Sat, Dec 01, 2012 at 10:24:53AM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> ]] Wouter Verhelst
>
> [...]
>
> > Personally, I'm not comfortable signing off my copyright to the FSF, for
> > the very same reason I'm not comfortable signing off copyright to
> > Canonical: while both are led by a person whom
On Dec 1, 2012, at 0:45, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 09:14:20AM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
>> Are you equating the FSF and the PSF with a private, for-profit company
>> here? That seems to be stretching it a bit.
>
> Not really, IMO.
>
> Personally, I'm not comfortable
]] Wouter Verhelst
[...]
> Personally, I'm not comfortable signing off my copyright to the FSF, for
> the very same reason I'm not comfortable signing off copyright to
> Canonical: while both are led by a person whom so far hasn't show much
> reason for me to distrust them, it is also true that
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 09:14:20AM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> Are you equating the FSF and the PSF with a private, for-profit company
> here? That seems to be stretching it a bit.
Not really, IMO.
Personally, I'm not comfortable signing off my copyright to the FSF, for
the very same reason
On Nov 30, 2012, at 09:14 AM, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
>There's a significant difference whether your contractual counterpart is
>somebody who has the public good or profits in the pockets of its owners
>in mind.
In the abstract, the non-profit or for-profit status of an organization is
little indi
]] Barry Warsaw
> On Nov 29, 2012, at 03:40 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
>
> >Plus, you have to sign a contributor's agreement with Canonical which leaves
> >a bad taste in my mouth. That shouldn't be the case with true free software,
> >should it?
>
> In an ideal world maybe it shouldn
26 matches
Mail list logo
