Other Open-Source / Linux Letdowns For 2018 From File Creation Time To Flatpaks

[jo-erlend]

The GPL does not protect the developer, it protects the code, so yes there will always be a gpl copy, the original. But in fact Canonical's CLA as an example does allow them to sell proprietary forks and they can do it without ever contributing anything back because open is not equal to free.... One protects code the other protects copywrite holder.... in fact it's the whole entire point is to sign over your copywrite.

EDIT: The copywrite holder can use any license they want, that's the whole entire point of a CLA....

The GPL does not apply to the original code, but only to copies. When you write software, you automatically have copyright on that code and when you distribute that code as GPL, the GPL does not apply to you and so you are not in any possible way prevented from selling or giving away non-GPL copies of that code. As I said, this is very basic stuff.

That's the whole point. When I write a program, I have the copyright to that code and have the absolute right to choose which license I want to use. If I have invested millions in that software, your trivial one-minute patch should not make you my equal partner. That would be extremely unfair to me. If you feel that your patch is so valuable that you must retain exclusive copyright on that code, then good for you, but then you'll have to maintain it yourself.

But none of this has anything to do with lock-in mechanisms or proprietary software. GNU for instance, is neither a lock-in system or proprietary software. I respect that you feel otherwise, but then you're making up a new concept and should use other phrases for your ideology.

Sounds to me like you prefer software in the Public Domain. Nothing wrong with that, but Free Software is something else and copyleft is specifically not Public Domain.

[Weasel]

The GPL does not protect the developer, it protects the code, so yes there will always be a gpl copy, the original.

Except the original is not a copy. I don't think you know what "copy" means.

As the owner of the code, you can even take away the GPL and put it under a prohibitive license -- and it will apply to anyone forking your code from that point on (not older snapshots). It's your right to do so because you are the god damn owner.

Only public domain has no ownership, in that case you can do whatever you want with the code, even put it under a license of your choosing (but then others aren't forced to use yours, they can use the public domain code as well).

[duby229]

The GPL does not apply to the original code, but only to copies. When you write software, you automatically have copyright on that code and when you distribute that code as GPL, the GPL does not apply to you and so you are not in any possible way prevented from selling or giving away non-GPL copies of that code. As I said, this is very basic stuff.

That's the whole point. When I write a program, I have the copyright to that code and have the absolute right to choose which license I want to use. If I have invested millions in that software, your trivial one-minute patch should not make you my equal partner. That would be extremely unfair to me. If you feel that your patch is so valuable that you must retain exclusive copyright on that code, then good for you, but then you'll have to maintain it yourself.

But none of this has anything to do with lock-in mechanisms or proprietary software. GNU for instance, is neither a lock-in system or proprietary software. I respect that you feel otherwise, but then you're making up a new concept and should use other phrases for your ideology.

Sounds to me like you prefer software in the Public Domain. Nothing wrong with that, but Free Software is something else and copyleft is specifically not Public Domain.

If you contribute to a project that use a CLA then you do not have copywrite, they do. And they can do what they want not you, even you as the developer have no rights.

It don't matter if a project use a copyleft or not, the copywrite holder can do whatever they want anyway and that's what the entire point of a CLA. Copyleft only works because copywrite law i real. if copywrite law didn't exist then copyleft couldn't work. That's the entire point. CLA's exit o the project hold all copywrite and can therefore do what they want with the license.

Canonical CLA definitely does allow them to licene any code for any project they host even if its already GPL, they are copywrite holder because of their CLA, they can do what they want with it even if you wrote it. As soon a you agree with their CLA you lose you copywrite and they gain it.

[Weasel]

If you contribute to a project that use a CLA then you do not have copywrite, they do. And they can do what they want not you, even you as the developer have no rights.

It don't matter if a project use a copyleft or not, the copywrite holder can do whatever they want anyway and that's what the entire point of a CLA. Copyleft only works because copywrite law i real. if copywrite law didn't exist then copyleft couldn't work. That's the entire point. CLA's exit o the project hold all copywrite and can therefore do what they want with the license.

Canonical CLA definitely does allow them to licene any code for any project they host even if its already GPL, they are copywrite holder because of their CLA, they can do what they want with it even if you wrote it. As soon a you agree with their CLA you lose you copywrite and they gain it.

And GCC/GNU stuff requires you to sign so all your contributions are ownership to the FSF for the same reason. I don't see the problem. They do it to avoid having a mess on their hands down the road.

If you don't like it, then don't contribute and fork it and maintain it yourself.

[duby229]

And GCC/GNU stuff requires you to sign so all your contributions are ownership to the FSF for the same reason. I don't see the problem. They do it to avoid having a mess on their hands down the road.

If you don't like it, then don't contribute and fork it and maintain it yourself.

The difference between FSF and Canonical is that Canonical -does- change the license and they -DO- sell proprietary forks. FSF could if they wanted to.

[bridgman]

If you contribute to a project that use a CLA then you do not have copywrite, they do. And they can do what they want not you, even you as the developer have no rights.

Not sure that is true... some CLA's involve copyright assignment but the trend is towards having the contributor maintain copyright but grant the project a fairly broad set of licensing rights. I believe Canonical has moved away from copyright assignment in most cases as well.

[jo-erlend]

The difference between FSF and Canonical is that Canonical -does- change the license and they -DO- sell proprietary forks. FSF could if they wanted to.

Which? This is a very specific claim. Which of their GPL products are now proprietary?

[duby229]

Which? This is a very specific claim. Which of their GPL products are now proprietary?

For example every single thing Canonical host.

[duby229]

Not sure that is true... some CLA's involve copyright assignment but the trend is towards having the contributor maintain copyright but grant the project a fairly broad set of licensing rights. I believe Canonical has moved away from copyright assignment in most cases as well.

Not sure, but I know for fact that there are dozens of proprietary upstart builds in production. Even still...

[jo-erlend]

Not sure, but I know for fact that there are dozens of proprietary upstart builds in production. Even still...

Let me get this right; you are aware that there are dozens of proprietary Upstart builds being distributed without complying with the GPL? Name some of them then.