On 02/07/2014 02:58 PM, Fabian Keil wrote: > Fellowship of FSFE <[email protected]> wrote: > >> - Matthew Garrett criticised Canonical's contributor agreement[19]. >> Other copyright assignment tools, such as FSFE's Fiduciary License >> Agreement[20] and the GNU Project's copyright assignment, enable >> developers to prevent their code from being used in non-free software. >> In contrast, Canonical's agreement explicitly states that the company >> may distribute people's contributions under non-free licenses. If you >> value software freedom, FSFE recommends you not to sign agreements >> which make it possible to distribute your code under non-free >> licenses. > > Is this recommendation, the reasoning behind it and the process > that led to it documented somewhere? > > The recommendation seems to imply that people who prefer or don't > object to non-viral free software licenses don't value software > freedom.
It does not, I think. Whether you prefer to release your code under a copyleft or more permissive license while still retaining the copyright yourself is a completely different matter from when you sign off your copyright without any guarantee that your code won't be released under a proprietary license. As far as I can see it's too completely different situations; it's the assignment that makes the difference.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
