Originally posted by bridgman
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
KDE Developers Continue To Be Frustrated With Canonical
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by mrugiero View Post
I am not against the CLA existence, and the same as you, I think it makes a lot of sense for Canonical. I disagree in that it fully maintains the spirit of free software intact, as IMO symmetry is part of that spirit
If you meant by "free software", the freedom to implement closed source proprietary derivates without giving anything back , then i guess that from a commercial and non open source point of view , the Canonical's CLA might not look so convenient for some. But still, that is not unfair at all, why would that be unfair if we are talking about a signature initiative of Canonical?. My understanding is that Wayland is more liberal, that is all.
Comment
-
[QUOTE=Alex Sarmiento;368266I repeat, CLA's are asymmetrical by nature.[/QUOTE]
Well, actually, not all of them. Fedora's current CLA only defaults code without an explicit license to be MIT. It is perfectly symmetrical.
Of course, the general case is that CLAs are asymmetrical, as that's usually the main reason they use it.
Comment
-
Originally posted by mrugiero View PostWell, actually, not all of them. Fedora's current CLA only defaults code without an explicit license to be MIT. It is perfectly symmetrical.
Of course, the general case is that CLAs are asymmetrical, as that's usually the main reason they use it.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Alex Sarmiento View PostI did not know that even fedora has a CLA, LOL . If you are careless about the license of your own contribution then i am sure you are careless about issues of asymmetry and symmetry .
Comment
-
Originally posted by Alex Sarmiento View PostPlease notice that i did not say just "free software". Free software could be closed source and proprietary software for free. Instead, i said free (as libre) open source software. So what i said was absolutely right . But now i am wondering about what Aaron Seigo , some KDE developers and others really mean when they talk about "free software " or something like that.
If you meant by "free software", the freedom to implement closed source proprietary derivates without giving anything back , then i guess that from a commercial and non open source point of view , the Canonical's CLA might not look so convenient for some. But still, that is not unfair at all, why would that be unfair if we are talking about a signature initiative of Canonical?. My understanding is that Wayland is more liberal, that is all.
Something that is proprietary and gratis is not free software, it's instead called freeware. Learn the terminology!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Alex Sarmiento View PostPlease notice that i did not say just "free software". Free software could be closed source and proprietary software for free. Instead, i said free (as libre) open source software. So what i said was absolutely right . But now i am wondering about what Aaron Seigo , some KDE developers and others really mean when they talk about "free software " or something like that.
If you meant by "free software", the freedom to implement closed source proprietary derivates without giving anything back , then i guess that from a commercial and non open source point of view , the Canonical's CLA might not look so convenient for some. But still, that is not unfair at all, why would that be unfair if we are talking about a signature initiative of Canonical?. My understanding is that Wayland is more liberal, that is all.
When you talk about "free software" not being something freely close-able, then the CLA gets in the way. It just makes it asymmetrically close-able, but its derivatives can still become closed source. It just means there is a single entity telling who can and who can not make a closed source derivative. In that context, the GPLv3 has almost only a commercial meaning, as it doesn't really prevent closed derivatives from being created, but allows you only if you convince (usually paying) a single entity. So, if you are a purist, where free software must remain free, the CLA gets in the way. If you are more liberal, and think your code should be freely used in any way their receptors want, CLA gets in the way, because the GPLv3 disables them and have to ask permission to the one with the right to relicense (in this case, Canonical).
So, not, what you said wasn't completely right, because in both of the most common ways to see free software, the CLA introduces new problems. And there is the spirit of free software, who gets which freedoms. Asymmetry might be seen, depending on a person's values on it, as free or as not really free.
I never said it is "unfair". A developer knows before contributing any code that this is part of the deal, and can decide not to contribute if he/she doesn't agree with this.
Comment
Comment