Conversation
Notices
-
@kevingranade I don't think it weakens the project. Reduces the number of potential contributors, sure. But, by how much no one knows.
-
The Whole is Greater: http://gould.cx/ted/blog/The_Whole_is_Greater
-
@tedgould if I am not mistaken, Canonical is not pushing for CLA but for CAA, which is a more problematic
-
@agateau I might be confused, but I thought copyright assignment could be part of a contributor license agreement. Need a Venn diagram ;-)
-
@tedgould The "Harmony Agreement Selector" disagrees with this idea: http://selector.harmonyagreements.org/
-
@agateau There's a set of definitions here: http://is.gd/cbuQ4M Not sure one is particularly more problematic though.
-
@bkuhn which empowers individuals but weakens the project as an entity. I'm not sure that's a good thing.
-
@tedgould,I'm confused, are you saying Linux is a weak project b/c it uses inbound=outbound? It seems in your post you argue Linux is strong
-
@tedgould,BTW,I got into software freedom b/c it empowers individuals *&* strengthens whole at same time. Two aren't mutually exclusive IMO.
-
@bkuhn, I'd say Linux is the exception. Though it provided an easy to understand example.
-
@bkuhn collections of individuals simply can't be as agile as organizations. i.e. Representative Democracy vs. Direct Democracy.
-
@tedgould "Contributors: Sacrifice your commitment to !freesoftware for t̶h̶e̶ ̶g̶r̶e̶a̶t̶e̶r̶ ̶g̶o̶o̶d̶ #Canonical's revenue" !capitalism
Justin Washu O'Brien likes this. -
@fontana you're talking about licenses specifically, but I think that implies value as well if you're saying they should be symmetric.
-
@fontana I'd imagine that the reason is fear of lawyers
Clacke Moved to Unlimited likes this. -
@tedgould, I agree: orgs are good to have, particularly non-profit ones. But that's orthogonal to what license assurances everyone has.
-
@tedgould, a healthy fear of lawyers is a *good* thing. Many lawyers are a dangerous influence on software freedom ( @fontana included :)
Clacke Moved to Unlimited likes this. -
@bkuhn I think an org is significantly handicapped in a shared copyright situation. Individuals can have agendas outside the project's good.
-
@bkuhn Inkscape uses "GPL it and hope it works out" like most of Free Software. Should probably be more formalized at some point though.
-
@tedgould, IMO I'd recommend !Inkscape needs only something like the !Linux DCO. Obviously if you want more, !Conservancy can do more.
-
@bkuhn I'd agree we need at least that. I think if we were to clean up licensing it could be a lot of work. http://is.gd/jp19qX
-
@bkuhn You might have confused my argument as being against CA instead of just a general distrust of the FSF.
-
@bkuhn I'd agree that shared copyright is a good thing for those with the most conservative readings of the GPL and GPL enforcement.
-
@tedgould So you don't trust the !FSF to protect !freesoftware projects, but you do trust #Canonical? Could you explicitly state that?
-
@bkuhn Sorry, conservative was a bad choice of words on my part. We probably have different thoughts based on it.
-
@bkuhn more concerned with those who'd object to things like GPL'd software in the Mac App Store because it doesn't ship source along side.
-
@bkuhn if a project wanted to decide that they felt that was okay, one contributor could ask for a take down with shared copyright.
-
@bkuhn I've not assigned copyright to Canonical or the FSF. My work with Canonical projects is covered by my employment agreement.
-
@bkuhn I would say that those who don't trust Canonical to be good stewards of the project with their patch, shouldn't assign copyright.
-
@tedgould, I think you might be confused on reasons the #Apple Store is !GPL violating. I suggest: http://ur1.ca/03p3b
-
@bkuhn If the software itself made an offer for the source delivered independently of the iTunes Store, would there still be a problem?
-
@bkuhn App store, apple store is more or less unrelated ;)
-
@tekk, I refuse to call it "App Store". I say #Apple Application Online Store to be precise. I refuse to let Apple control standard words.
Christopher Allan Webber likes this. -
@webmink, @brettcsmith's essays on this are very clear about the completely !GPL incompatible of #Apple's Application Store terms.
-
@bkuhn that works, I simply didn't want people to be confused(as I was) and think that the apple store was responsible ;)_
-
Building on @bkuhn's dent, non-profit missions guarantee adherence to intention in ways that for-profits don't w/o the intention in writing.
-
@bkuhn Thanks for the excellent blog post explaining how the Apple App Store is violating the GPL on Gnu Go: http://ur1.ca/03p3b
-
@fontana LGPLv3, in fact :-)
-
@webmink (1/2) No, because Apple does not let you redistribute, which is the FSF's main problem. Killswitches that deny the freedom to run
-
@webmink (2/2) seem ok. I do not understand that at all.
-
@ovidius But my reading suggests that as long as the Corresponding Source is available & redistributable the copyright is licensed.
-
@webmink my take is that it would then be Free Software, but the store still fails to comply with the GPL reqs
-
@fontana For any Android app from the M/place I must grant Google the right to remotely wipe it from my phone.Why is this ok for GPL'd apps?
-
@lxoliva It's not obvious to me that that matters as long as Corresponding Source is available.
-
@webmink GPLv3 is ok with sources available from third party, indeed; GPLv2 isn't. is this what you're getting at?
-
@webmink or is the contention on the other issue, that the store contract may deny freedoms rendering the software non-free?
-
@lxoliva Yes, I believe (L)GPLv3 code will be fine in the various app stores (assuming the host doesn't explicitly block it)
-
@lxoliva GPLv2 I've not considered in detail in this regard.
-
@webmink the store imposes restrictions on the use of the binaries that are not permitted by GPL, regardless of src availability
-
@lxoliva v2 or v3? I find it hard to read v3 §6 that way.
-
@kevingranade I think this is just too hard for 140-char conversation. But I remain unconvinced Apple is even party to the GPL...
-
@kevingranade As I say, it's a conversation too hard to have in sound bites.
-
@webmink isn't it Apple's store that distributes the program? if Apple isn't a party, then Psystar wouldn't be either ;-)
-
@lxoliva I think it's possible to look for ways that it's possible, just as FSF looked for ways it was impossible...
-
@webmink it sure is possible, as long as Apple refrains from imposing restrictions not permitted by the GPL
-
@lxoliva ... in the opinion of a copyright holder with sufficient standing.
-
@fontana His answer was, that GPL allows for kill switches in Marketplace. I still fail to see why.
-
@okayryan, I didn't write that, take a look at the by-line. It's @brettcsmith. I Just linked to it recently b/c someone was asking about it.
-
@bkuhn Yes, I thought it was the distribution of source, not the further restrictions clause.
-
@bkuhn though, an org with centralized copyright could still decide distribution to MacOS users was worth non-enforcement in that case also.
-
@bkuhn Well, I haven't assigned anything to the FSF because I've never had an idea for a patch to a FSF project.
-
@bkuhn If I did, I probably would assign because having the whole codebase with my patch as GPL would be all I'd really want in the end.
-
@bkuhn I understand not trusting Canonical. But, I think that saying it is "harmful" to Free Software ignores its history.
-
All Identi.ca content and data are available under the