+ 2014-02-11 Tue 01:03, Johannes Zarl <[email protected]>: > I did mention that part about Qt not being a company, but being owned by > Digia > because of the previous statement of you citing "BSD" as the "owner" of the > Qt > project.
What? Why would "BSD" mean any other thing than the BSD license here? I already explained in the last email! > > > > > - The owner of Qt may make the entire Qt project proprietary by first > > > > > releasing it under a BSD license. > > > > > > > > You see, the problem with your example is that it's actually > > > > wrong. > > > > > > How so? > > > > I explained it to you in my former email. > > > > To put it bluntly, your sentence is nonsense. > > It is a one-sentence summary of the agreement between KDE and the > owner/Digia/copyright holder/"Qt"/whatever. > > It is nonsense if one redefines the meaning of owner and ignores the > references to the blog post comments and has been oblivious to the way KDE > and > "Qt" are working together. We were speaking in general terms, and suddenly you're talking about a specific case. I was never commenting on the specific case and only said "Qt" as an example to try to explain to you why what you wrote **in general terms** was wrong. I'm sorry to tell you that what you're writing there does not make sense to me. I don't know how to explain it in another manner and I don't understand what you're writing now. You say "it is nonsense if one redefines the meaning of owner" but that's actually the **opposite** of what I said. If you take the common understanding of what "owner" would mean in your sentence, it would be the copyright holder (and you seem to agree with that common understanding). But in that case the sentence does not make sense because the copyright holder can always make something proprietary, there's no impact from the BSD (LICENSE!) or whatsoever. What I'm only trying to do here is to make sure that people in FSFE lists can understand some of the various implications that different legal tools have. This is why we criticised some types of copyright assignments in our newsletter. Because I've seen myself at FOSDEM this year that it's far from clear to many developers what copyright licenses, copyright assignments and things like the FLA are. And I agree it's easy to get lost when you don't understand them. It took some time to make sure that people understood broadly what the GPL did exactly (and it's still far from finished but at least 95% is done and that's enough); then again it took time to understand software patents and how they are negative; now have to make sure people understand these copyright assignments before they can make a conscious decision about whether they think this is good for software freedom or not. Oh BTW, since you were talking about KDE, KDE has adopted FSFE's FLA years ago: http://ev.kde.org/rules/fla.php Best, -- Hugo Roy, Free Software Foundation Europe, <www.fsfe.org> Deputy Coordinator, FSFE Legal Team, <www.fsfe.org/legal> Coordinator, FSFE French Team, <www.fsfe.org/fr> Support Free Software, sign up! <https://fsfe.org/support>
pgpWXe3D0JKvE.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
