On 15/01/2020 04:51, Mike Gerwitz wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 15:39:30 +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>> I will continue contributing code to (names of projects) retaining all
>> intellectual property rights personally during this suspension of the
>> agreement.
>
> Please note that the GNU Project and the FSF avoid use of the term
> "intellectual property":
>
> https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.en.html#IntellectualProperty
>
>> I also wish to notify you that my contributor agreement will be
>> reinstated when FSF makes a satisfactory commitment about leadership and
>> governance issues. I have not yet decided what will constitute a
>> satisfactory commitment, for now, I will review the proposals put
>> forward by FSF and I may contribute further criteria as the situation
>> evolves.
>
> The FSF has no authority over the GNU Project, and so this isn't a
> useful statement.
The assignment is to the FSF though.
> GNU requires copyright assignments for all substantial changes from
> contributors to GNU packages with copyrights assigned to the FSF. By
There is a big difference between
a) licensing work under the GPL
b) assinging copyright to another party (e.g. FSF)
People can still do (a), publish their work with a GPL license without
doing (b). They can suspend (b), so the code is visible and ready to be
accepted.
People could also maintain a parallel repository with all the embargoed
code ready to merge.
> suspending that, your contributions will not be able to be accepted, and
> you're predicating the assignment on a condition that is not possible
> for the FSF to meet.
>
> I understand there are frustrations all around, but attempting to force
> change raises tensions rather than resolving them.
The GPL itself attempts to force change on people. People say the
impact of such a license is viral.
The suspension letter template aims to have a similar effect as the GPL,
but rather than impacting code, it impacts the organization structures.