+ 2014-02-15 Sat 18:06, Florian Weimer <[email protected]>: > This is a complicated topic. I don't understand why the FSFE is > against CLAs, considering that it granted permissions to use FLA code > in proprietary programs (see the previous discussion about the > agreement with Bacula Systems—the published agreement is not even > restricted to Bacula code).
FSFE never *granted* permissions to use FLA-covered code in proprietary programs. It simply does not have that power under the FLA. The text of the FLA is available to read here http://fsfe.org/activities/ftf/fla.html It's not that long, please have a look. Some background on the Bacula case is available here https://fsfe.org/activities/ftf/bacula-agreement.en.html The bit that contradicts directly what you are saying is: FSFE does not endorse the existence of a non-free version, but FSFE cannot forbid authors to execute the rights granted by copyright in their own work, as long as this does not limit the scope of fiduciary's exclusive license. The permission to make proprietary software was absolutely not granted by FSFE, but directly by developers (who hold copyright in their contributions). -- 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>
pgpuClGokAtux.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
