Originally posted by RahulSundaram
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
GNOME & Intel Developers Plan The Wayland Future
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by TheBlackCat View PostYou don't have to assign copyright to Canonical or Qt, either. You provide them a license to sublicense it. Fedora doesn't seem to require this anymore (they used to), but it looks like Red Hat still does (second link), and whatever the first link is also requires it.
"As of Sep 15, 2010 a CLA is no longer required. This page is being maintained for historical purposes "
Comment
-
Originally posted by RahulSundaram View PostDon't be fooled by misleading links. If you look at any *current* agreements of Red Hat, you will find that none of them require you to assign copyright or sublicense. It was dismantled for all actively maintained Red Hat projects except for Cygnus like I noted before.
Comment
-
Originally posted by RahulSundaram View PostIt is effectively the same when you are licensing them the right to do anything they want with your code.
So, for example, with copyright assignment, you could conceivably be sued for copyright violation for using your own code. This can never happen with Canonical or Qt because you still own the copyright to your code.
Further, they are not allowed to do "whatever they want with your code", they are still bound to provide it under the same license you contributed it under. They can add additional licenses, but they have no right to take any license away.Last edited by TheBlackCat; 01 August 2013, 10:31 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by TheBlackCat View PostNot really. With copyright assignment, they own the copyright, meaning you no longer have any rights to it at all. With a license agreement, it gives them additional rights, but does not take away any of your existing rights. You can still do whatever you want with the code.
Further, they are not allowed to do "whatever they want with your code", they are still bound to provide it under the same license you contributed it under. They can add additional licenses, but they have no right to take any license away.
Here is the fundamental problem: They have the *sole* ability to relicense the entire codebase in any way they see fit. You can cling on to your own copyright but it is unequal agreement. ONLY Digia can sell Qt under a proprietary license. No single contributor can do that. Similarly for Canonical and say, Mir.
Comment
-
Originally posted by RahulSundaram View PostWell no, copyright agreement cannot take away all my rights depending on the country. In some places, these rights are not alienable
Originally posted by RahulSundaram View PostQt license does not have any such clauses requiring them to license the codebase under the original contribution.
Originally posted by RahulSundaram View PostHere is the fundamental problem: They have the *sole* ability to relicense the entire codebase in any way they see fit. You can cling on to your own copyright but it is unequal agreement. ONLY Digia can sell Qt under a proprietary license. No single contributor can do that. Similarly for Canonical and say, Mir.
Comment
-
Originally posted by TheBlackCat View PostI never said it wasn't asymmetrical, I said it wasn't the same as copyright assignment, which it isn't. Nothing you have said changes that.
Comment
-
Originally posted by RahulSundaram View PostNote, I said *effectively* the same because they are both asymmetrical and that to me is a fundamental reason to reject them both.
Comment
-
Originally posted by TheBlackCat View PostBy definition they are not "effectively the same" because their effects are very different. In one case you lose rights, and restricted in what you can do with your own code. In the other, you aren't. That is a different effect. "I don't like either" and "they are effectively the same" are not the same thing.
Comment
Comment