This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
On 25 Jan 2016 19:21, JÃrn Engel wrote: > That said, I find language like "version 2 or later" trollbait at best. > The paranoid in me and many other developers starts wondering under what > circumstances the FSF might turn evil, by any definition of evil, and > create a license to further their own schemes. this doesn't retroactively change existing releases. so any code you contribute today, at worst, will be under that license (LGPL-2.1+). > Copyright assignment is far far worse. I am signing away ownership of > the code. But of which code? Everything I ever write in the future? > To answer this question I have to read a lot of legalese, any developers > favorite. Then I have to pay a lawyer to explain the finer points to > me, because I may have missed them. Next I have to pay a second lawyer > to judge whether the first lawyer even knew what he was talking about, > which sadly isn't always the case. FSF CLA is per-project, and iirc, only like one or two pages. i don't recall it being that dense. i'm not trying to push you to sign a CLA ... it's certainly your choice and CLA's do suck. unfortunately, this is currently what the FSF forces onto GNU projects. i'm not really sure why anymore -- the busybox/linux cases show that GPL enforcement is possible w/only a single copyright holder and no project CLA. -mike
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |