Hi, Greg Troxel <[email protected]> writes:
> 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. It's not very clear indeed (not mentioned anywhere in the contribution documentation), but I remember there *is* a copyright assignment request at some point, probably when someone sends a substantial enough patch. If you check the copyright notices in the Jami source, you'll find that for the code the sole copyright holder is Savoir-faire Linux. > 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). I'm not a fan of CLAs myself, but at least it's still free software. If Savoir-faire Linux was to suddenly close Jami and continue developing it as proprietary software, the existing released code would continue being free and could be forked into a continuing project. > 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". There's no such thing as GNU projectS; except *the* GNU project :-). You mean a GNU *package*. GNU packages are loosely tied under the GNU project umbrella, they have a lot of latitude in the way they choose to do things, but there are some guidance offered for example in (info "(maintain) Ethical and Philosophical Consideration"), an Info manual that comes from the 'gnu-standards' package. -- Thanks, Maxim
