>> (The other is that the >> licensing is completely unclear, because patchers must send changes >> under an AGPLv3-incompatible license, yet the project is AGPLv3'd. It >> makes no sense, and would make it impossible for me and many others to >> contribute.) > > This, I believe, is a more serious issue. I noticed that problem > too. Actually, I can't figure out what they're doing: > http://civicrm.org/licensing > Their lack of explanation doesn't help either. It's just "here's > licensing terms to apply to your code when you give it to us." I > don't trust this, and I would not want to donate code under these > terms. My guess is that when you license to them under the Artistic > License, that allows them to build proprietary forks with your code, > if they wish. > > Maybe we should rule out CiviCRM for this reason alone, unless we're > prepared to make an all-free fork (as with Joomla). > > I believe in free software that remains free for all, without the > possibility of proprietary forks. I am prepared to sign over the > codebase of OA to an appropriate non-profit organization that is > committed to keeping it free forever. And I would expect > contributors to do the same. I believe this is how core FSF software > is licensed?
Thanks for that very useful input, I myself would be reluctant to give a big contribution under this dual licence). I've discussed it briefly with CiviCRM, and they tend to agree that it could be improved and clarified (eg. CLA, single licence...). If this is a major issue I'm quite sure this could be amended and made better. Do you mind if I quote you (anonymously) and add it to their forum, to see what other CiviCRM think about it ? Again, I'd suggest not excluding CiviCRM on that criteria alone, as if this is the only issue, they are prepare to clarify and fix the licence situation. Xavier _______________________________________________ software mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.flossfoundations.org/mailman/listinfo/foundations-software
