* Thomas Goirand:
On 12/07/2012 05:39 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
The FSF can release your code under permissive free software licenses
Can you explain how this is possible?
As far as I know, the FSF is not contractually obliged to license
contributors under copyleft licenses only.
--
To
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
* Ian Jackson:
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
On 12/07/2012 05:39 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
The FSF can release your code under permissive free software licenses
Can you explain how this is possible?
I wont trust such a strong statement just because someone
wrote it on debian-devel ...
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes:
Bjørn Mork bj...@mork.no writes:
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.
Have you see the
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
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
On Sun, Dec 02, 2012 at 05:49:43PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
The answer, as it happens, is the very terms of the FSF's copyright
assignment, which ensures the work remains available under a copyleft
license. *That* is the gold standard for copyright assignment, by which
other copyright
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.
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk 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
Bjørn Mork bj...@mork.no writes:
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.
Have you see the copyright assignment contract that you make
On Dec 04, 2012, at 12:42 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
The main issue for some of us is not so much the ethical objections to
these sorts of agreements but rather the fact that our employers flatly
are not interested in signing anything of the sort, ever, with anyone.
Much of my free software work is
On 2012-12-04 12:42:33 -0800 (-0800), Russ Allbery wrote:
[...]
The main issue for some of us is not so much the ethical
objections to these sorts of agreements but rather the fact that
our employers flatly are not interested in signing anything of the
sort, ever, with anyone. Much of my free
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
On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 12:42:33PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Bjørn Mork bj...@mork.no writes:
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
On Sun, Dec 02, 2012 at 05:49:43PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
The answer, as it happens, is the very terms of the FSF's copyright
assignment, which ensures the work remains available under a copyleft
license. *That* is the gold standard for copyright assignment, by which
other copyright
Tollef Fog Heen writes (Re: Contributor agreements and copyright assignment):
Wouter Verhelst
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
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
On Sat, Dec 01, 2012 at 10:24:53AM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
]] Wouter Verhelst
[...]
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
Wouter Verhelst wou...@debian.org writes:
On Sat, Dec 01, 2012 at 10:24:53AM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
]] Wouter Verhelst
[...]
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
On Sun, Dec 02, 2012 at 11:58:55AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
The FSF is bound by its bylaws.
So are most corporations.
Depending on how much you trust US law (and depending on the state in
which the non-profit is formed), there is a fairly substantial difference.
Board members of
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
]] Wouter Verhelst
[...]
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
On Dec 1, 2012, at 0:45, Wouter Verhelst wou...@debian.org 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
]] 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
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
26 matches
Mail list logo
