2 ms·
The entity holding the copyright can change to a new restrictive license, and continue development there, effectively killing the old GPL version and so locking
by the_gipsy 2y ago
The 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.