Conversation
Notices
-
@fontana You could just as well say it empowers the project to do enforcement even if the developers don't want to bother.
Wednesday, 29-Jun-11 13:39:05 UTC from web-
@bkuhn Doesn't mean the devs are *right* to blur the legal details, just that the finer points of licensing are picked up later.
-
@allisonrandal,diff btw !GPL, !LGPL &permissive licenses aren't "finer points",they're the basics. You've low opinion of developers it seems
Rob Myers likes this. -
@bkuhn Not a low opinion, just very open and accepting to new members of the dev community who are still learning about FLOSS.
-
@allisonrandal,Please stay on topic. We weren't talking about new members; we were talking about existing contributors who picked a license.
-
@bkuhn I thought we were talking about devs signing a contrib agreement? Those often are new devs.
-
@allisonrandal, re: your claim "devs who picked GPL are just as happy w/ LGPL" you started talking about newbie devs. Rhetorical maneuver?
-
@bkuhn IIRC, I was explaining why we were trying to draft a general "copyleft" option for Harmony.
-
@bkuhn So, not the project's choice of outbound license, but the dev's restriction on how they're willing to have their work licensed.
-
@allisonrandal, but who exactly wants that? Which developers who picked !GPL wish they had a #CLA that relicensed it back to !LGPL?
-
@allisonrandal,you're talking about the relicensing *power* #Harmony requires developers to give to the company;Outbound's almost irrelevant
-
@bkuhn The question is whether devs want the project to promise only GPL, or are happy if the project promises "GPL or LGPL".
-
@bkuhn There is no one-size-fits-all answer to that question, which is why Harmony has options.
-
@allisonrandal, & I've asked you to exhibit the communities clamoring for a #CLA document that eviscerates strong #copyleft in this way.
-
@allisonrandal, it's becoming increasingly clear that #Harmony has a biased set of options: e.g., you continually ignored inbound=outbound.
-
@bkuhn The "GPL-only" option is really easy in Harmony. General "copyleft" is harder, but also possibly unnecessary.
-
@allisonrandal, inbound=outbound doesn't even need a #CLA longer than:"I agree to license my copyright under LICENSE". #Harmony isn't needed
-
@allisonrandal, the only reason for #Harmony to exist, ∴, is to shuffle power away from developers to corporate entities like !Canonical.
Brian van den Broek likes this. -
@bkuhn That relicensing power is limited by the outbound license restrictions. If "GPL-only", then project can only relicense as GPL.
-
@bkuhn inbound=outbound doesn't need a separate contributor agreement. Wouldn't make sense to write one.
-
@allisonrandal, and as I already said a few minutes ago, if the inbound=outbound, there's no use to #Harmony in the first place. Why do it?
-
@allisonrandal, & hence my point: #Harmony's sole purpose is to shuffle copyright licensing power from developers to corporate entities.
-
@bkuhn Entirely the reverse. Harmony exists to empower contributors with a clear understanding of their rights and responsibilities.
-
@allisonrandal,please don't pretend #Harmony is primarily an education project. If it were, it'd be a set of tutorials rather than contracts
-
@fontana You mean assignment version? or both licensing and assignment versions?
-
@bkuhn Not purely education, it's documentation process. Which is also a useful education process.
-
@allisonrandal,set of contracts isn't "documentation";It's a set of contracts;call spades "spades";Educational benefit of process irrelevant
-
@fontana Hmmm... if the contributor owns the copyright, they still have copyright enforcement power.
-
@fontana But, if you mean that Harmony+GPL-only-outbound is not exactly the same as GPL inbound, yes, that's true.
-
@fontana, IIRC @allisonrandal opposes !GPL enforcement (correct if I'm wrong),so © enforcement vs. third-parties is ∴ irrelevant to #Harmony
-
@allisonrandal, it's beyond "not exactly the same". #Harmony always eviscerates !GPL by taking away all enforcement power from developers.
-
@fontana, I'm basing claim re: @allisonrandal's opposition to !GPL enforcement based on memory of statements she made on Committee A calls.
-
@fontana,it's annoying when you make statements like:"FSF should ask itself why" when you know well I've started discussion at FSF re: topic
-
@fontana I'd say because people think the GPL is a hippie open-source license, rather than a viral political one.
-
@bkuhn the FSF should ask itself... pie or cake
-
@bkuhn I think it's not the FSF problem. The "GPL-loving" crowd should stop superimposing their own political views on the FSF
-
-
@allisonrandal, Thanks for clarifying. I'm curious then, how #Harmony proposes to ensure !GPL enforcability for developers who contribute.
-
@allisonrandal Not the reverse, that's insulting word play. Do you take people for stupid? Clear understanding of power shift, that's fact.
-
@bkuhn the !fsf at least promises not to change into proprietary, what Canonical is doing is promising they may do that one day.
-
@fontana That assumes that only individual developers do GPL enforcement. IIRC, the FSF and Conservancy have often been drivers.
-
@ruiseabra,indeed. I've known @allisonrandal for more than a decade. I respect her greatly,but she & I have major FLOSS policy disagreements
-
@allisonrandal, #Conservancy does !GPL enforcement both on its own © & as an agent for individuals. IMO that's best model for enforcement.
-
@allisonrandal, I've publicly stated I'm advocating within #FSF to end mandatory © assignment. Individual developers should have power too.
-
@allisonrandal, meanwhile, @laforge's individual enforcement efforts taught #FSF & #Conservancy a great deal about enforcement strategy.
-
@bkuhn I dont' have an issue with the fsf c assignment. promises to keep it free and it's for a good reason, imo
-
@allisonrandal, IMO the power to enforce !GPL is so strong when consolidated, *only* 501(c)(3)'s (& their non-USA equivs) should have it.
-
@bkuhn Agreed, there's a good place for both individual and organizational GPL enforcement. Shouldn't be exclusive to either.
-
@bkuhn Bravo.
-
@ruiseabra, @allisonrandal, @fontana & I are *all* using various rhetorical techniques here. It's how debates are, going back to #Cicero.
-
@allisonrandal well, I don't need to know you to be able to read the double speak in that dent I replied to.
-
@bkuhn disguising loss of power with 'better knowing rights and obligations' is a nasty and artistic double speak.
-
@bkuhn Hidden in plain sight. Cunning.
-
@ruiseabra, both @fontana & I have used rhetorical devices in this discussion too. I don't think @allisonrandal's rhetoric is any "worse".
-
@fontana nor of GNOME (whose G stands for GNU)
-
@smaffulli, © holdership for !GNU projects in all other cases is up to the individual projects. Here's !GNOME's policy: http://ur1.ca/10cm4
-
@allisonrandal, if it shouldn't be exclusive, why does #Harmony make it exclusive by using #CLA's to transfer enforcement power?
-
@bkuhn Copyright assignment transfers enforcement responsibility to the organization, copyright license keeps it with the individual.
-
@allisonrandal, it removes enforcement power against entity receiving the #CLA. e.g., !Canonical can use it to avoid #copyleft requirements.
-
@bkuhn I know that it's voluntary thing, thanks
-
@bkuhn One solution to FSF copyright assignment: create 2 other FSFs and mutally exclusively split assignment between all 3.
-
@bkuhn What, Socrates didn't have game?
-
@stevenrosenberg, probably. I referenced #Cicero b/c @fontana did himself a few weeks ago. Plus I despise the Socratic Method. It's bullshit
-
@fontana lawschool is for lawyers.
rozzin's identicat ghost likes this. -
@fontana @bkuhn no thanks !disturbing
-
@fontana @bkuhn Only if you submit it as a !disturbing april fools day RFC.
rozzin's identicat ghost likes this. -
@fontana: formal methods are actually no I can't even joke about it... ;-)
-
@bkuhn "GPL enforcement" is done on a GPL license. Enforcement on Harmony agreement terms is "Harmony enforcement", and perfectly possible.
-
@allisonrandal, if I've given someone a license *other* than !GPL, which most of #Harmony requires in most cases, GPL is then meaningless.
-
@allisonrandal A developer may like that if the org is likely to enforce (like @fsf). But @canonical has never enforced: http://ur1.ca/4khfy
-
@kevingranade Then it comes down to a question of how much copyright is enough to do enforcement.
-
@ossguy Have they ever been infringed? Some projects (e.g. busybox) are inherently tempting targets for infringement. Most aren't.
-
@allisonrandal Are you saying BusyBox *wants* the GPL to be infringed? Come on!! Oo
-
@fabsh it's their fault, they were begging for it, waving that tight code around..
-
@allisonrandal yes he could but he's not talking about that advantage. He means the disadvantage that Canonical wants right to proprietarize
-
@allisonrandal What do you mean with "tempting targets for infringement" That they made something that others want to take?
-
@allisonrandal Not sure what your point is. If dev writes #GPL code and can't enforce and (C)-holder won't enforce then GPL is made useless.
Bradley M. Kuhn likes this. -
@allisonrandal I don't think the #GPL is useful as merely a social norm. To work it must be legally enforceable. People eventually infringe.
-
@ossguy I mean you can't do enforcement against compliant users. Only infringement gives a reason to "enforce".
-
@allisonrandal,I say again: #CLA/©AA isn't needed for enforcement authority;eg: #Conservancy acts as Erik #Andersen's !GPL enforcement agent
-
@bkuhn Does Conservancy have some form of signed agreement to act as Erik's agent in enforcement?
-
@allisonrandal, of course, Conservancy has formal agreement w/ Erik to act as his agent for #GPL enforcement. But not a #CLA nor assignment.
-
@fontana, I think it's likely to be impractical. It'd be impractical for #Conservancy to do it for anyone other than major copyright holders
-
@allisonrandal, Amanda #Brock has stated that universal © holership is required for enforcement. Is that position also yours & !Canonical's?
-
BTW, amazing Amanda #Brock has audacity to claim to me universal © holdership is needed for enforcement, given that I've helped disprove it.
-
@allisonrandal Right. It'd be nice if everyone was compliant, but eventually someone infringes. Then dev should have (C) or enforcing org.
-
@bkuhn As I understand it, her position is that it's "useful" or "helpful", not "required". But, I can't really speak for Amanda.
-
@allisonrandal,Amanda said it to me (when defending !Canonical's demand of © assignment) & hasn't retracted. I was asking *your* view though
-
@allisonrandal To be clear, I think legal action should be saved for when other avenues don't work. But we shouldn't avoid it entirely. #GPL
-
@allisonrandal This is from my experience as a part-time @conservancy employee (my views are my own). Many hardware vendors infringe #GPL.
-
All Identi.ca content and data are available under the