The Modularization Of KDE Frameworks 5

[Chaz]

You have the burden of proof here, remember it

No, you do, because this is common knowledge which has been explained a dozen times in other threads. He doesn't have the burden to explain the truth in a personalized fashion every time a single new member pops up with a question, when the info is readily available on the FSF's site and in past Phoronix threads. And he even told you where to find it!

But the answer is: The FSF copyright assignment form has a clause that guarantees all future versions and other derived works will be released as free software (parallel nonfree versions are allowed). Thus even though FSF becomes the sole copyright holder they do not get the right to lock up future versions.

Most other copyright assignment forms, like Canonical's, do not contain that clause, because locking it up (or having the power to) is their goal. FSF's goal is to be able to defend GPL rights in court, because there is/was a rather obscure doctrine in the courts that one of many copyright holders does not have the right to bring lawsuits in the same way that a sole copyright holder would. Thus FSF wanted to hold sole copyright on Gnu code to make sure courts recognized them as having legitimate standing to assert GPL rights. That legal doctrine has been weakened by some more recent court rulings but Gnu still uses assignment on some projects out of inertia and as a precaution in case some courts still decide to follow it. Even though Gnu and Canonical's documents are both copyright assignments they're really polar opposites in spirit.

[smitty3268]

I think you have a strange idea of what KDE is. Let me enlighten you:

Let me enlighten you:

Honton is always the 1st poster on any topic related even loosely to KDE, Qt, Gnome, or Wayland. And he always posts the same thing.

I'll let you draw your own conclusions about whether or not it's worth replying to him. Certainly everyone else on this site always does...

[CTown]

KDE makes the Qt CLA really bad because of the Free Qt agreement. It offers nothing but gives KDE the ability to damage software freedom after the free Qt is closed. Worst part about this this agreement with Qt is the exclusivity, KDE only. That puts Qt above all other, then KDE and finally there is other Qt users. Don't expect KDE to be transparent and fair about this.

That doesn't really make sense. Qt would get released under a BSD license if a new open sourced version of Qt fails to release in a timely manner. I would think that KDE either (1) makes their newly licensed Qt code under the LGPL or (2) just help out the Qt Project which is already in charge of Qt maintaince to disrupt the ecosystem as little as possible. The Qt Project could handle dual licenses if that's how they wish to operate after small time developers/companies figure out that maintaing a fork of a project as big as Qt is no small matter. Thanks to the source compatibility breaks of KDE Frameworks 5 and the new-ish openness of Qt, the relationship of the Qt Project and KDE have never been better. If Digia wants out, very talented KDE members plus companies such as KDAB can take care of Qt.

[jospoortvliet]

Let me enlighten you:

Honton is always the 1st poster on any topic related even loosely to KDE, Qt, Gnome, or Wayland. And he always posts the same thing.

I'll let you draw your own conclusions about whether or not it's worth replying to him. Certainly everyone else on this site always does...

Thanks, that saves me time replying to nonsense...

[nachoig]

Honton = funkSTAR

Every thread about KDE, Qt or Canonical, he is reapeating the same things about CLA. It's a waste of time.

[cardboard]

Stop quoting this guy. Seriously.

[erendorn]

Most other copyright assignment forms, like Canonical's, do not contain that clause, because locking it up (or having the power to) is their goal.

As a condition on the exercise of this right, We agree to also license the Contribution under the terms of the license or licenses which We are using for the Material on the Submission Date.

They can only close their own contributions. Which, really, is always true on any project you host.