Re: Contributor agreements and copyright assignment (was Re: Really, about udev, not init sytsems)
On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 07:03:23PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 12/05/2012 06:15 AM, Steve Langasek wrote: > > I understand that concern and recognize that this is a not-uncommon > > sentiment among Debian folks; this very closely parallels the question of > > whether one is willing to release software under a BSD license - or the MPL > > - vs. the GPL. But while some people do object to releasing their patches > > under a BSD license, there's certainly room for BSD code in Debian. The > > same is true of GPL works with contributor agreements. Yes, some folks will > > choose not to contribute to it on upstream's terms, but there are still > > plenty of others who will. > I don't really want to go into the CLA debate (others have better > things to share than me about it). But I think we all agree that, > for some in Debian (I'm not talking about myself here), the Ubuntu > CLA is (at least) annoying, to the point it has been mention in the > init debate. > So, my question to you Steve is: has this been discuss inside > Canonical recently? No. The current CLA is the *result* of extensive discussions with the wider Free Software community about how this should work. It is not the goal to create a CLA that makes every individual in Debian happy, and even if it were that's not a realistic goal. The terms of the agreement are not up for discussion here. Nor am I trying to convince people that they (or their employers) should be happy with the CLA if they aren't. I'm merely advocating that people judge such agreements on their own merits. As a technologist, I would certainly love it if everyone who might like to contribute to upstart would be comfortable with the terms of doing so, but unfortunately that's not going to be the case. Even so, upstart remains a viable project, and people don't have to be willing to contribute to it themselves to reap the benefits of that. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Contributor agreements and copyright assignment (was Re: Really, about udev, not init sytsems)
On 12/05/2012 06:15 AM, Steve Langasek wrote: > I understand that concern and recognize that this is a not-uncommon > sentiment among Debian folks; this very closely parallels the question of > whether one is willing to release software under a BSD license - or the MPL > - vs. the GPL. But while some people do object to releasing their patches > under a BSD license, there's certainly room for BSD code in Debian. The > same is true of GPL works with contributor agreements. Yes, some folks will > choose not to contribute to it on upstream's terms, but there are still > plenty of others who will. I don't really want to go into the CLA debate (others have better things to share than me about it). But I think we all agree that, for some in Debian (I'm not talking about myself here), the Ubuntu CLA is (at least) annoying, to the point it has been mention in the init debate. So, my question to you Steve is: has this been discuss inside Canonical recently? Would it be possible that Canonical rethinks its contribution policy for at least Upstart (eg: wave the CLA signing requirement for Upstart)? Or is this something that you think has very little chance to change? Cheers, Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/50bf29fb.2090...@debian.org
Re: Contributor agreements and copyright assignment (was Re: Really, about udev, not init sytsems)
On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 06:42:37PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Barry Warsaw writes ("Re: Contributor agreements and copyright assignment
> (was Re: Really, about udev, not init sytsems)"):
> > FTR: http://www.canonical.com/contributors
> That allows Canonical to make proprietary forks of the code (eg, to
> engage in the dual licensing business model). This is very
> troublesome for me; it's too asymmetric a relationship.
I understand that concern and recognize that this is a not-uncommon
sentiment among Debian folks; this very closely parallels the question of
whether one is willing to release software under a BSD license - or the MPL
- vs. the GPL. But while some people do object to releasing their patches
under a BSD license, there's certainly room for BSD code in Debian. The
same is true of GPL works with contributor agreements. Yes, some folks will
choose not to contribute to it on upstream's terms, but there are still
plenty of others who will.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Contributor agreements and copyright assignment (was Re: Really, about udev, not init sytsems)
Ian Jackson writes:
> Barry Warsaw writes ("Re: Contributor agreements and copyright assignment
> (was Re: Really, about udev, not init sytsems)"):
>> FTR: http://www.canonical.com/contributors
>
> That allows Canonical to make proprietary forks of the code (eg, to
> engage in the dual licensing business model). This is very
> troublesome for me; it's too asymmetric a relationship.
>
> This is a right that the FSF assignment doesn't give the FSF
IANAL, but I believe you are wrong there. You give them much wider
rights than this by assigning the copyright to the FSF. The copyright
owner is free to relicense the work in any way they want.
The rights transferred in the Canonical agreement are very limited
compared to this.
> and which the FSF wouldn't exercise even if they had it.
No, the current FSF wouldn't do that. But how about the company taking
over assets after the FSF lose a major lawsuit? That company will then
own the copyright on your work, including the rights to relicense it.
I still don't think issues like this should prevent anyone from
contributing to any currently open source project. Yes, it will be
frustrating if your work ends up being part of some proprietary
software, but it's even worse if you cannot contribute to these projects
out of fear of that happening.
BTW, never take any legal advice from me.
Bjørn
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87k3sxlggu@nemi.mork.no
Re: Contributor agreements and copyright assignment (was Re: Really, about udev, not init sytsems)
On Dec 04, 2012, at 06:42 PM, Ian Jackson wrote: >That allows Canonical to make proprietary forks of the code (eg, to >engage in the dual licensing business model). This is very >troublesome for me; it's too asymmetric a relationship. Not to diminish your own concerns, but it doesn't bother me. To take a hypothetical case, let's say Skype were free software, and available on Debian. I write some clever hack to allow me to make phone calls in Emacs. I would have no qualms about signing a similar contributor agreement with Microsoft because I know a free version of my code will always be available, no matter what they do with it. I'd even hope they accept my contribution because while my patch has value, so does the larger body of code that it applies to, and for me, there is even more value in having that combination available upstream so more people can benefit from it. My patch has less value as a patch that someone has to apply independently and rebuild. -Barry signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Contributor agreements and copyright assignment (was Re: Really, about udev, not init sytsems)
Barry Warsaw writes ("Re: Contributor agreements and copyright assignment (was
Re: Really, about udev, not init sytsems)"):
> FTR: http://www.canonical.com/contributors
That allows Canonical to make proprietary forks of the code (eg, to
engage in the dual licensing business model). This is very
troublesome for me; it's too asymmetric a relationship.
This is a right that the FSF assignment doesn't give the FSF and which
the FSF wouldn't exercise even if they had it.
Ian.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/20670.17437.431949.139...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: Contributor agreements and copyright assignment (was Re: Really, about udev, not init sytsems)
On Dec 01, 2012, at 07:21 AM, Clint Byrum wrote: >Just any FYI, Canonical no longer requires copyright assignment in their >CLA. You are still giving Canonical an unlimited perpetual license on the >code, but you retain your own copyrights. FTR: http://www.canonical.com/contributors with embedded links to the actual CLA for individuals and entities (in PDF form), as well as a FAQ. This one seems particularly relevant to the current discussion: 7. What’s different between the new contributor agreement and the old one? One difference between the two is that the old agreement was a copyright assignment agreement (where the contributor granted ownership of the contribution to Canonical), while the new one is a copyright license agreement (where the contributor grants permission for Canonical to distribute the contribution). One new element is a promise back to the contributor to release their contribution under the license in place when they made the contribution. The new agreement also features some refinements in the language around software patents and in how the contributor disclaims warranties. What I like about this CLA is that you retain your copyrights to the contribution, so you can do whatever you want with your contribution, including dual-license it, sell it yourself under a proprietary license, etc. This deeply appeals to the artist in me. The CLA also guarantees that your contribution will continue to be available with the license it was originally granted under. Meaning, even if Canonical takes your contribution proprietary and closed, your original contribution will continue to be available under the original (presumably) FLOSS license. By comparison, the PSF contributor agreements policy is available here: http://www.python.org/psf/contrib/ with embedded links to the actual form. Again, there is no copyright assignment. The choice of initial licenses on the contribution is more limited, meaning if you have a GPL'd contribution, you will have to dual license it under the Academic Free License v2.1 or Apache License v2.0 in order to contribute it to the PSF. The PSF contributor agreement says nothing about patents or moral rights, but it does guarantee that the contribution will be available under a FLOSS license. None of the terms of either contributor agreements seem particularly onerous to me, nor should they (IMHO) be an impediment to participating in such projects. -Barry signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Contributor agreements and copyright assignment (was Re: Really, about udev, not init sytsems)
On Dec 1, 2012, at 0:45, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 09:14:20AM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: >> Are you equating the FSF and the PSF with a private, for-profit company >> here? That seems to be stretching it a bit. > > Not really, IMO. > > Personally, I'm not comfortable signing off my copyright to the FSF, for > the very same reason I'm not comfortable signing off copyright to > Canonical: while both are led by a person whom so far hasn't show much > reason for me to distrust them, it is also true that both leaders have > an agenda that I don't completely trust or agree with. > Just any FYI, Canonical no longer requires copyright assignment in their CLA. You are still giving Canonical an unlimited perpetual license on the code, but you retain your own copyrights. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4869ee1f-c008-471e-b882-a5c5831a5...@ubuntu.com
Re: Contributor agreements and copyright assignment (was Re: Really, about udev, not init sytsems)
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 09:14:20AM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > Are you equating the FSF and the PSF with a private, for-profit company > here? That seems to be stretching it a bit. Not really, IMO. Personally, I'm not comfortable signing off my copyright to the FSF, for the very same reason I'm not comfortable signing off copyright to Canonical: while both are led by a person whom so far hasn't show much reason for me to distrust them, it is also true that both leaders have an agenda that I don't completely trust or agree with. Yes, one of the groups makes a profit, and the other doesn't. I don't think money is dirty, however, so that doesn't even remotely factor into my decision. -- Copyshops should do vouchers. So that next time some bureaucracy requires you to mail a form in triplicate, you can mail it just once, add a voucher, and save on postage. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121201084518.gb23...@grep.be
Re: Contributor agreements and copyright assignment (was Re: Really, about udev, not init sytsems)
On Nov 30, 2012, at 09:14 AM, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: >There's a significant difference whether your contractual counterpart is >somebody who has the public good or profits in the pockets of its owners >in mind. In the abstract, the non-profit or for-profit status of an organization is little indication of whether they Do Good or Do Evil (or both). All I'm saying is that contributor agreements are a fact of FLOSS life, and that I've had people refuse to assign copyright to the FSF for contributions to my GNU projects. When they've stated their principles for this refusal, I can respect that even while I might try to convince them their concerns are misplaced. -Barry signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Contributor agreements and copyright assignment (was Re: Really, about udev, not init sytsems)
]] Barry Warsaw > On Nov 29, 2012, at 03:40 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > > >Plus, you have to sign a contributor's agreement with Canonical which leaves > >a bad taste in my mouth. That shouldn't be the case with true free software, > >should it? > > In an ideal world maybe it shouldn't, but in truth it is for both open source > and free software. As project leader of a GNU project, with copyrights owned > by the FSF, I am required to obtain copyright assignments from contributors, > which some folks feel are more onerous than contributor agreements. Open > source projects like Python require contributor agreements for core > developers, and this is not an uncommon requirement. Are you equating the FSF and the PSF with a private, for-profit company here? That seems to be stretching it a bit. > We can argue about specific contribution legal documents and policies > (although hopefully, not here ;) but not about whether they are a reality in > today's FLOSS world. There's a significant difference whether your contractual counterpart is somebody who has the public good or profits in the pockets of its owners in mind. -- Tollef Fog Heen UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87hao7ik2r.fsf...@qurzaw.varnish-software.com
