On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 10:29:23 +0800 Paul Wise wrote:
[...]
> Personally, I trust the FSF, as a non-profit public interest charity,
> to be a good copyright steward for Free Software code
[...]
Personally, I don't.
The FSF has, in my own humble opinion, a bad track record of
publishing and/or prom
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 9:14 PM, Frederic Bonnard wrote:
> I've got more details about the agreements :
> "libvecpf was created with the intention of being integrated later to glibc.
> glibc islicensed under LGPL and, as a GNU/FSF project, requires copyright
> assignment: https://www.gnu.org/licen
Hi,
I've got more details about the agreements :
"libvecpf was created with the intention of being integrated later to glibc.
glibc islicensed under LGPL and, as a GNU/FSF project, requires copyright
assignment: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.en.html
Thus, libvecpf is also licensed as LGPL
Ben Finney writes ("Re: [Individual|Corporate] Contributor License Agreement"):
> Frederic Bonnard writes:
> > My best option is, indeed, to ask to remove those agreements from the
> > source.
>
> It can often be effective to offer an alternative.
>
>
Frederic Bonnard writes:
> Though, as Ian mentionned, and as I intuitively felt, I still think
> there are unpleasant conditions in this agreement, in respect to the
> social contract will of giving back to the community, amongst others.
> It's a real stymie.
Yes, CLAs are a steadily growing pla
Frederic Bonnard writes ("Re: [Individual|Corporate] Contributor License
Agreement"):
> Though, as Ian mentionned, and as I intuitively felt, I still think
> there are unpleasant conditions in this agreement, in respect to the
> social contract will of giving back to the
Wed, 7 Sep 2016 17:01:21 +0100, Ian Jackson
wrote:
> Frederic Bonnard writes ("[Individual|Corporate] Contributor License
> Agreement"):
> > I'm wondering if an agreement meets the DFSG during the packaging
> > process of a library called libvecpf. It's unde
Frederic Bonnard writes:
> I'm wondering if an agreement meets the DFSG during the packaging
> process of a library called libvecpf.
Thanks for raising this while doing the packaging work, it is important
to get this right.
> It's under GPLv2.1+ but there are 2 additional files which are
> agre
Frederic Bonnard writes ("[Individual|Corporate] Contributor License
Agreement"):
> I'm wondering if an agreement meets the DFSG during the packaging
> process of a library called libvecpf. It's under GPLv2.1+ but there are
> 2 additional files which are agreemen
Hi Frederic,
these agreements seem to cover how one may contribute the code back
upstream. I think that upstream is free to put any rules here -- there
are upstreams that completely reject outside contributions, and other
require a transfer of the copyright. Everyting is fine here.
So, I would no
Hi everybody,
I'm wondering if an agreement meets the DFSG during the packaging
process of a library called libvecpf. It's under GPLv2.1+ but there are
2 additional files which are agreements.
Depending if you are an individual contributor or a corporate one :
- https://github.com/Libvecpf/libvecpf
11 matches
Mail list logo