4 ms·
>Centralizing copyright ownership in a single entity grants that entity the ability to lock down the project at any time and defeat the copyleft (e.g. Oracle ki
by Thorrez 2y ago
>Centralizing copyright ownership in a single entity grants that entity the ability to lock down the project at any time and defeat the copyleft (e.g. Oracle killing off OpenSolaris).
I don't understand how copyright ownership of FOSS code would impact an entity locking down the project. I don't think owning the copyright gives the entity the ability to do that. Maybe owning the trademark or the Github repo would, but not the copyright.
- rocqua 2y agoIf you want to switch the license on a software project away from GPL, that is possible. All old versions were and will remain GPL. Any new versions can stop being GPL as long as all copyright holders agree to let this happen. You cannot use the GPL license to allow publishing this new version. But you can use permission by all copyright holders as an exception.
- bluGill 2y agoRight but generally the organization with the CLA has moned and develapers and so can move faster than the old free fork and thus overwhelm it. even if they don't have money today if someone with money wants to take over they are a target.
- danielheath 2y agoIf I contribute code to a GPL project without signing a CLA, and they later decide to re-license, they cannot use my contributions in the re-licensed version. If I've signed a CLA, they can.
- fweimer 2y agoThat depends on what the CLA says. A few do not permit arbitrary relicensing.
- exe34 2y agoThe original code up to that point is still GPL though, so they can't lock down your contribution, they are just using it in a closed system. The open system is still available for everyone.
- purple_turtle 2y agoIt is not changing that CLA makes easier to abandon open source project and use contributions in proprietary system.
- the_gipsy 2y agoThe entity holding the copyright can change to a new restrictive license, and continue development there, effectively killing the old GPL version and so locking down the project. The original contributors would not agree, but they gave up their rights.
- einpoklum 2y agoI don't disagree with the general claim, but about your scenario specifically - the "entity holding the copyright" is not, generally, the entity doing the development. If it is, then the question is not copyright assignment but just whether or not the main developing entity sticks to a FOSS development or not.
- purple_turtle 2y ago> but just whether or not the main developing entity sticks to a FOSS development or not if software is say GPLv3 and they hold no copyright (no CLA) then they must not relicense it. If copyright was transferred to them they are free to relicense code. First makes sticking to free software licensing more likely.
- Thorrez 2y agoThat's a good point. However, I think for the entity to do that in practice, the entity would need to also own the trademark and the Github repo (or wherever development takes place). So there's no real risk to assigning copyright to the FSF if the FSF doesn't also own the trademark and the Github repo.