* Stephen M. Webb (stephen.w...@canonical.com) wrote: > On 12/28/2014 09:50 PM, Alberto Salvia Novella wrote: > > > > But there's a problem with that, which is it overrides the social contract > > with people to code to belong to the world > > not to a group of individuals; making the system abusive by design. > > > > It's like telling that an autocracy is better because its drivers have > > extra flexibility to do whatever will be needed > > in future, which is also a proven method for sinking projects and > > communities. > > > > So please address the root causes that let to this issue, so we have a > > healthy environment for everyone. > > I think you will find that there is no conflict between any vaguely defined > "social contract" and the requirements for > acceptable code submission to a software project. If you could enumerate the > abuses engendered by asking for a grant of > license I'd be happy to address them individually. > > In order to accept code contribution to a Canonical-led software project a > small number of conditions need to be > satisfied. Among these conditiona are a strict minimum level of demonstrable > code quality (we do no want buggy code), > applicability (we do not want irrelevant code), and the same rights as the > author (an explicit rights grant, also known > as the CLA).
That's very misleading. I don't think any reading of Alberto's mail is objecting to code review. > You will find upon a close reading of the various source code distribution > licenses that they do not harbour any > requirements that arbitrary code contributions must be accepted upstream. In > fact, you will not find any examples of > Free or open source software projects anywhere that unconditionally accept > arbitrary code contributions. It's just not > a thing. CLAs are indeed common practice; however ones that allow relicensing of contributions under arbitrary commercial licenses are much rarer and those are objectionable, and I think you realise that's what Alberto was objecting to. > If you truly believe that the original works of an author or authors belong > not to them individually but to some larger > collective, you would probably be more effective talking to legislators to > get the copyright and patent laws in your > local jurisdiction struck down, and best of luck with that. Mean time we > will continue asking the authors of > contributions to agree to share the specific rights in their work if they > want it accepted into a Canonical-led project. > That's the best way to guarantee fairness for everyone. Of course we're all free to fork the canonical code to a project that doesn't have the same CLA, so it's not a vast issue; but as is I can not contribute to a subproject that requires contributions under the current CLA. Dave > > -- > Stephen M. Webb <stephen.w...@canonical.com> > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-bugcontrol > Post to : ubuntu-bugcont...@lists.launchpad.net > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-bugcontrol > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp -- -----Open up your eyes, open up your mind, open up your code ------- / Dr. David Alan Gilbert | Running GNU/Linux | Happy \ \ gro.gilbert @ treblig.org | | In Hex / \ _________________________|_____ http://www.treblig.org |_______/ -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
