3 ms·
Wait, Free Software Foundation requires a CLA itself! https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.en.html
by jpablo 8y ago
Wait, Free Software Foundation requires a CLA itself!
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.en.html
- sevensor 8y agoThey do, and I believe it's because it gives them a better platform from which to pursue GPL violation claims. I think that's basically sensible and an exception to OP's general statement -- if you're contributing to an FSF project, you need to understand that what you're doing is political as well as technical. You're giving FSF more ammunition with which to enforce copyleft. FSF is an exception to the concern that the asignee of your copyright is going to do a proprietary relicensing.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- scrollaway 8y agoIn other words, "do as I say, not as I do".
- sevensor 8y agoThat's an odd conclusion to draw from my post. Are you under the impression that OP represents the FSF? He does not. Neither do I. My point is that the general rule that one should be wary of CLAs because they can be used to take away your software freedoms probably doesn't apply to the FSF. A different consideration applies to the FSF -- if you don't like their political goals, don't support them by contributing to their projects.
- yarrel 8y agoAnyone can assign their copyrights to the FSF. So no. ;-)
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- MaxBarraclough 8y agoIt figures - the FSF are believers in releasing under "GPLv3 or later", which almost no-one does, as the FSF are of course empowered to do whatever they want with future GPL versions.