The X.Org Foundation Is Undecided About Mir

[jayrulez]

It's true that I havent read the CLA yet, so maybe I'm just not seeing the whole picture. But the point of the GPL is that it doesnt matter who owns the code. Thats the entire reason for the copyleft. I could own it, you could own it, microsoft could own it and it still wouldnt matter. The GPL does -NOT- protect the author or the owner. It is designed for the purpose of protecting the code. It doesnt matter what the authors or the owners want to do. If a code base is licensed GPL then the terms of the GPL need to be abided by. The owner of the code can't simply decide that the terms of the GPL don't apply to itself. The GPL specifically states that in no uncertain terms.

EDIT: Again that is the whole point for the copyleft. you can't simply decide that it doesnt apply to you. It doesnt protect you, it protects the code. It doesnt matter if you make people sign over the rights to the code to you. The GPL doesnt protect you. It doesnt matter if you are the owner or author or whatever else. You don't matter, only the code does.

And you are right that the CLA does not circumvent the GPL. But if canonical decides to change the license from GPL to something else and then doesnt make changes that they made to the GPL code base public then they are violating the GPL. The only way to avoid that would be to replace all of the existing GPL code.

It doesnt matter who owns the code whether it is you or canonical or god. Once it is licensed GPL then the terms need to be abided by.

That is not quite right. The author of any piece of GPL work can license the code under any other licence after the fact.

[duby229]

As long as the terms of the GPL code base are abided by. You can't simply decide that the GPL doesnt apply to you.

[jayrulez]

For instance, when khr has changed the wayland's license (two times if I'm not wrong), he has asked the permission to all the contributors, because the others devs have not signed any CLA.
Same story about the linux vs nvida saga:

In that case, some devs were ok with the nvidia request others did not, the results was NO.
With the CLA Canonical can change the license of the project without consult the others contributors at all.

Those are good examples. Another one is with the VLC fiasco.

[jayrulez]

As long as the terms of the GPL code base are abided by. You can't simply decide that the GPL doesnt apply to you.

You are either talking about something else or you did not understand what I said.

Let me make it as simple as I possibly can and see if that clear things up for you.


Say duby229 creates a text editor named "Note". All source code was written by duby229.
duby229 releases note along with the source code under GPL3 licence.

Evil corporation Xgrim contacts duby229 and expresses interested in using "Note" as the base for their vile product "NoteMachina" to commit equally vile acts.
duby229 has the freedom to give the code to Xgrim under a BSD licence for a hefty sum where Xgrim can make modifications to create "NoteMachina" without contributing the modifications back to "Note" or duby229.

Xgrim did not violate the GPL because the owner/author of the code licensed the code to them under a BSD licence and they are not obligated to contribute changes back.

Comprehend now?

Year 2015:

Now say jayrulez contributes code to "Note".

Evil corporation Bisq approaches duby229 in order to use "Note"'s source to base their product "NoteFang" on.
duby229 cannot give the code to Bisq because he is not the sole holder of the copyright to "Note".
Therefore as long as Bisq uses code from Note in NoteFang, all changes must be made available by Bisq as long as NoteFang is distributed.

duby229 is not happy with this so he builds a time machine and goes back to year 2014 and implements a CLA for the "Note" project where by signing, the contributer assigns the copyright of his contributions to duby229.

Evil corporation Bisq approaches duby229 in order to use "Note"'s source to base their product "NoteFang" on.
duby229 can give the code to Bisq because he is holder of the copyright to "Note".

Understand?

[duby229]

You are either talking about something else or you did not understand what I said.

Let me make it as simple as I possibly can and see if that clear things up for you.


Say duby229 creates a text editor named "Note". All source code was written by duby229.
duby229 releases note along with the source code under GPL3 licence.

Evil corporation Xgrim contacts duby229 and expresses interested in using "Note" as the base for their vile product "NoteMachina" to commit equally vile acts.
duby229 has the freedom to give the code to Xgrim under a BSD licence for a hefty sum where Xgrim can make modifications to create "NoteMachina" without contributing the modifications back to "Note" or duby229.

Xgrim did not violate the GPL because the owner/author of the code licensed the code to them under a BSD licence and they are not obligated to contribute changes back.

Comprehend now?

The GPL doesnt protect the owner of the code... Or the name of the code... or the version of the code.... It protects the -ACTUAL- code. If the BSD licensed product is using code that is protected by the GPL then the terms of the GPL must still be abided by. The only way to avoid that would be to replace the GPL protected code.

It doesnt matter what the owner of the code wants to do. Once it is licensed GPL then it is protected by its terms. You can't just decide that it doesnt apply to you.

EDIT: The copyright holder doesnt have any rights under the terms of the GPL. It doesnt protect them. It is a copyleft license. The point and purpose of it is to protect the code. If you can show that the actual code is being used in a way that violates the GPL then it doesnt matter what the copyright holder wanted to do it is still a violation. The copyright holder can relicense as BSD, but if the actual code used in the BSD license is also licensed GPL, then the terms of the GPL must still be abided by.

[jayrulez]

The GPL doesnt protect the owner of the code... Or the name of the code... or the version of the code.... It protects the -ACTUAL- code. If the BSD licensed product is using code that is protected by the GPL then the terms of the GPL must still be abided by. The only way to avoid that would be to replace the GPL protected code.

It doesnt matter what the owner of the code wants to do. Once it is licensed GPL then it is protected by its terms. You can't just decide that it doesnt apply to you.

I don't think I can be any clearer about this.

Please read the more elaborative answer to the question here: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5...be-re-licensed

Please ensure you read thoroughly and understand each section.

[Hamish Wilson]

They are here to tell you that Linux could not even boot before Canonical blessed us with a dark GNOME theme and defined Linux as we know it.

Personally, I don't mind Ubuntu, but I don't like the direction Canonical has been taking -- isolationist, controlling, NIH.

In any case, absolutely nothing has changed for me since Ubuntu first arrived. But some of the newer converts who are only familiar with Ubuntu tend to be overprotective. They think Linux didn't exist before that

Well said.

[duby229]

I don't think I can be any clearer about this.

Please read the more elaborative answer to the question here: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5...be-re-licensed

Please ensure you read thoroughly and understand each section.

Read the GPL man. You are definitely wrong. You can relicense your code, but any of it that is protected by the GPL must abide by its terms. It is stated clearly and beyond the shadow of doubt.

[Hamish Wilson]

EDIT: The copyright holder doesnt have any rights under the terms of the GPL. It doesnt protect them. It is a copyleft license.

Copyright or Copyleft, the owner of the code can choose to re-license the code however they see fit. How else can previously proprietary applications become free software ones? I think you have failed to understand how Copyright law works here.

[Hamish Wilson]

Read the GPL man. You are definitely wrong. You can relicense your code, but any of it that is protected by the GPL must abide by its terms. It is stated clearly and beyond the shadow of doubt.

Again, as long as the code is legally yours you may relicense it. That will not affect the code that is already public under the GPL which will stay GPL, but you may make a proprietary version of the application as long as you own the rights to the code.