Thank you very much for your cogent responses and your "insider" insight.


On Apr 17, 2013, at 10:18 AM, Bruce Perens <> wrote:

> On 4/17/2013 10:12 AM, Karl Fogel wrote:
>> Bruce Perens <> writes:
>>> Karl, Robin means that the work is dedicated to FSF and placed under a
>>> BSD or MIT license. These are compatible with the GPL and FSF is fine
>>> with it.
>> Er, yes.  (Was there something I said that contradicted that?)
> Just that Robin doesn't know as much about this, and it's really easy to 
> confuse rather than enlighten :-)
> Robin, FSF's main concern is that works meet their "Four Freedoms", which the 
> permissive licenses would. They have a secondary goal of using reciprocal 
> licensing as a strategy to increase the amount of good free software, but it 
> is not my understanding that they would reject a work for being permissive.
> Of course, with FSF holding the copyright they can, theoretically, determine 
> the license. However, they are much less likely to do this as long as there 
> is still an active developer running the project and the license used meets 
> the four freedoms. Richard Stallman knows through long experience that 
> pushing on developers about licensing can get them really annoyed, and the 
> FSF's director is more empathic than Richard and thus unlikely to do that 
> either.
> A more modern way for a project to donate than to assign to FSF would be to 
> become a member project of the Software Freedom Conservancy. This 
> organization is very clearly on the side of Free Software but leaves the 
> control of the project in the developer's hands.
>    Thanks
>    Bruce

License-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to