Maxim Cournoyer <[email protected]> writes: > Hi Greg, > > Greg Troxel <[email protected]> writes: > >> And further, if Jami is a "GNU project", how is that compatible with >> proprietary relicensing? > > Compatible in terms of copyright? As the sole holder of Jami's > copyright, Savoir-faire Linux can sub-license the code any way they > like. Compatible in terms of philosophy, ethics? I am not fully sure, so > don't quote me on that, but I seem to recall RMS having written some > words in a article about it saying that if it allowed to fund the > development of free software, the practice could be acceptable or a > lesser evil. If someone can find the source of that article, that'd be > nice (I couldn't).
There are multiple issues. Yes, if Savoir-faire Linux is the sole holder, then certainly they can relicense. I looked at the repo and I don't see anything that talks about a copyright assignment or CLA, so that ought to mean simple outbound=inbound. >From a Free Software ethics viewpoint, then one could consider proprietary relicensing ok. There's a separate question about whether it is ok to ask contributors for CLA or assignment (when the receiving entity isn't a charity). Beyond that, I was asking specifically about "GNU Projects", which are not just ethically acceptable Free Software projects but part of an effort by the FSF. Even if proprietary relicensing is viewed as acceptable in general, I do not understand how proprietary relicensing or a requirment for CLA/assignment to a non-charitable entity could be ok as part of a project that has been designed a "GNU Project".
