LinuxQuestions.org
Review your favorite Linux distribution.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > LinuxQuestions.org > Linux - News
User Name
Password
Linux - News This forum is for original Linux News. If you'd like to write content for LQ, feel free to contact us.
All threads in the forum need to be approved before they will appear.

Notices



Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 01-23-2014, 07:02 AM   #16
TobiSGD
Moderator
 
Registered: Dec 2009
Location: Hanover, Germany
Distribution: Main: Gentoo Others: What fits the task
Posts: 15,653
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 4095Reputation: 4095Reputation: 4095Reputation: 4095Reputation: 4095Reputation: 4095Reputation: 4095Reputation: 4095Reputation: 4095Reputation: 4095Reputation: 4095

Quote:
Originally Posted by k3lt01 View Post
I am not the person who is saying people discussing this on their own blogs are malicious because they don't understand something.
Stop twisting words in my mouth, that is not at all what I have said. Maybe I have to repeat it for you:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TobiSGD
If you bash someone or intentionally post wrong information then I call that malicious.
Quote:
As you understand it? So others are not allowed to have a differeing opinion to you without you saying they are malicious then.
Again, stop twisting words. I never have said that others are being malicious for having different opinions.
Thanks for that, I got that wrong and I appreciate the correction.
Quote:
As for "if you don't like it just don't contribute" that is exactly what this is about. I don't like it, I don't contribute, I stated as much in my first post on this matter. It would be nice of you to respect that choice.
Where exactly did I disrespect that choice of you not to contribute?
Quote:
From the very beginning of my participation in this discussion I have stuck to Canonical's CLA, if you want to diverge from that so be it but please don't expect me to change my opinion because you want to diverge.
OK, that was what I wanted to know. If examples come up that show exactly the same behavior that you criticize about the CLA but are somehow ignored you just ignore them, too.
Quote:
Wrong, re-licensing is merely licensing or authorising again.
I disagree. In the open source world adding an additinal license is usually called dual-licensing (or multi, depending on the number of licenses), while relicensing is removing the old license for a new one. Prominent example: VLC was relicensed from GPL to LGPL. SInce the rest of your argument is based on that IMHO wrong definition I will ignore it.
Just one last thing:
Quote:
I respect your right to it I have never called you malicious or ill informed unlike you who believe others are malicious.
I also never called you malicious and I don't plan to do so, unless you are willfully spreading wrong information to get page impressions. Please re-read my previous statements.
 
Old 01-23-2014, 12:57 PM   #17
cascade9
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2011
Location: Brisneyland
Distribution: Debian, aptosid
Posts: 3,718

Rep: Reputation: 904Reputation: 904Reputation: 904Reputation: 904Reputation: 904Reputation: 904Reputation: 904Reputation: 904
As I understand it, while canonical must publish any submitted code under the GPL, there is no requirement for code contributred to remain GPL, due to the 'We may license the Contribution under any license, including copyleft, permissive, commercial, or proprietary licenses''2.3 Outbound License' clause.

Yes, you retain the rights to your own code, but canonical for all intents owns your code just as much as the writer/submitter does.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TobiSGD View Post
You rarely see people complain about Digia, which has the exact same business model with Qt, it seems really to be more cool to bash Canonical instead.
I've never really liked it myself, and its one the things that is driving me back to Xfce.

But there is a different between a 'cross-platform application framework' and a whole ecosystem, which is where canonical seem to want to go.

*tin foil hat on..or maybe not* I'm sure that part of why canonical wants the right to close the code is because of things like the work they did on chrome OS. I'm sure that they would love to develop and sell software to various other large companies...

Quote:
Originally Posted by TobiSGD View Post
No, possibly because Canonical never closed down any code contributed under CLA. All their open source projects are still open source, so for now there never was a need for such a test case.
You know this how? Its not like they have a 'if we close the code and sell it/give it to a 3rd party we'll let you know' clause.

For all we know the some of the TVs now in stores have canoncial developed software, using contributed code and closed up. Its totally legal as far as I can tell, and that is just one of many possible 'markets' for canonical code.

Yes, the 'projects' are still open source, that doesnt mean there isnt a closed version running around on something, somewhere.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TobiSGD View Post
The contributed code is protected by the GPL and can not be closed down.
If it was based on a previous project where canonical took GPLed code, then yes. But As far as I know the projects that canonical requires you to 'sign' the contributor agreement are 'in house' 'from sctatch' projects.

If you write some software by yourself then publish it under the GPL, you can still make a closed source version (provided that its all your own code, or you've got a snazzy legal agreement with any contributors). The canonical contributor agreement gives them the same rights.

Last edited by cascade9; 01-23-2014 at 12:58 PM.
 
Old 01-23-2014, 01:00 PM   #18
metaschima
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2013
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 1,533

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by ukiuki View Post
I found this very interesting, not directly related to the topic but close enough in terms of abuse, very interesting information!

Regards
This one is a clear cut case of nominative fair use, and Ubuntu is clearly wrong in this case.

For the CLA, I think Linus may be the most correct on this. CLAs are used by the FSF, Apache, and Canonical, but people do hate on Canonical because it is for-profit, and I do agree with them. While the FSF and Apache and unlikely to sell your code, Canonical is likely to. My question then is, why would anyone pay for code that you can get for free ? Probably because they re-license the code under a proprietary license, change or add some of their own code and release it as a new proprietary program. This does defeat the original purpose of the GPL, which is to prevent GPL'd code from ending up in proprietary closed-source programs from where no giving back will ever occur.

The main purpose of CLAs is to help companies defend / enforce the license of the code without the cooperation of hundreds of developers, like the article says. However, CLAs do give a lot of power to these companies, and developers and people in general should be aware of this.

Last edited by metaschima; 01-23-2014 at 05:49 PM.
 
Old 01-23-2014, 03:52 PM   #19
k3lt01
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2011
Location: Australia
Distribution: Debian Wheezy, Jessie, Sid/Experimental, playing with LFS.
Posts: 2,899

Rep: Reputation: 623Reputation: 623Reputation: 623Reputation: 623Reputation: 623Reputation: 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by TobiSGD View Post
Stop twisting words in my mouth, that is not at all what I have said. Maybe I have to repeat it for you:
I haven't twisted your words, I have used them exactly as I interpreted them from what you wrote down.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TobiSGD View Post
Again, stop twisting words. I never have said that others are being malicious for having different opinions.
In essence that is what is is though. They have a different opinion to you, you think because of this they are "bashing" Canonical so they must be malicious.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TobiSGD View Post
Thanks for that, I got that wrong and I appreciate the correction.
You are most welcome. You see the idea is to not assume things but to research it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TobiSGD View Post
Where exactly did I disrespect that choice of you not to contribute?
My wording was not as good as it could have been. The intended meaning was it would be nice if you would respect my, and others choices. Your repsonse so far seem to be a bashing of anyone who does not agree with you because you have "come out with all your guns ablazing" while not actually having anything but your own opinion to base what you are saying on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TobiSGD View Post
OK, that was what I wanted to know. If examples come up that show exactly the same behavior that you criticize about the CLA but are somehow ignored you just ignore them, too.
I haven't ignored them, I never considered participating in them so I don't have a valid comment on them and if I did comment on them my comment would be as fundamentally flawed as your comments about Canonicals CLA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TobiSGD View Post
I disagree. In the open source world adding an additinal license is usually called dual-licensing (or multi, depending on the number of licenses), while relicensing is removing the old license for a new one. Prominent example: VLC was relicensed from GPL to LGPL.
Wrong. You see the issue here is Canonical's CLA is as is written in Section 6, governed by the laws of England. England is a Common Law jurisdiction, as is Australia, New Zealand, Canada, etc. What goes on in the open sources world has no legal standing Canonical can do what it wants if you sign that agreement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TobiSGD View Post
SInce the rest of your argument is based on that IMHO wrong definition I will ignore it.
You are ignoring something within a legal document when you have no understanding of the legal processes of the country it was drawn up in! Good job Tobi. Did you care to read the definition I linked to? it is Oxford and that is English from England. You see the issue now is until you fight something like this in a court in England everything you are saying is just an opinion whereas what I, and others, are saying is based on the agreements wording. Canonical says they can do it (but you believe they can't) because you agree to it. Are you willing to fight them through a legal system if they do something that you believe they can't do even though it is written in the agreement that they can? I doubt you are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TobiSGD View Post
Just one last thing: I also never called you malicious and I don't plan to do so, unless you are willfully spreading wrong information to get page impressions. Please re-read my previous statements.
I never called you malicious either and neither did all those bloggers yet you are spreading information that is, in all probability, incorrect.
 
Old 01-23-2014, 05:46 PM   #20
metaschima
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2013
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 1,533

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
This is from groklaw (as close to a lawyer as you can get without paying):
http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic....10524120303815
Quote:
Where that single entity is a commercial entity, there may also be an interest in dual licensing, i.e., the ability to license the same code under a FOSS license and a proprietary license. This approach has been successfully employed by companies such as MySQL, but MySQL also wrote about 99% of the code in their code base. The original MySQL contributor agreement was replaced with one from Sun, and has now been replaced by this one from Oracle [PDF], which grants Oracle joint ownership of copyright. [NB: Joint ownership of copyright can be problematic, since each of the owners can license under terms they choose.]
...
Some projects, like the GNU projects run by the Free Software Foundation (FSF), in some instances require an assignment of code submissions if they are to be included in the project. [See, Contributing to GCC as an example. There the FSF asks that contributors either assign their copyright or disclaim it (put the code in the public domain). In neither case does the contributor retain any rights under copyright in their contribution. Such an approach likely works for the FSF because they have been a trusted partner in assuring code stays free.
...
FSF uses the above approach where FSF itself is the principal developer of the project or where the principal developers have elected to assign copyright to the FSF. But this approach is not used on all GNU projects, some of which rely merely on the governing GPL to keep everything in line. [Note: See updates, below.]

You will also note from the above assignment text that the FSF makes an important commitment to the contributor as to the manner in which the FSF will relicense the contributed work. In other words, the FSF has limited itself to the GPL, LGPL, or Affero GPL, so any party assigning to the FSF can take comfort that their contribution will remain free.

But where does that leave other development groups, including those run by commercial entities such as Red Hat (Fedora Project) and Canonical, to say nothing of important projects like Apache and Eclipse that have their own communities. How do each of these entities approach the subject of contributions to projects they are managing.

Canonical, and more specifically, Mark Shuttleworth, have made some news lately around Canonical's contributor agreement. The Canonical approach mirrors, to some extent, the approach taken by the FSF. Canonical asks contributors to assign the copyright in their contribution to Canonical, and Canonical then “simultaneously grants the contributor a very broad license back, so that the contributor retains full rights to re-use, distribute, and continue modifying the contributed code.” The language of the grant states:

"Canonical grants to Me a world-wide, non-exclusive, royalty-free and perpetual right to use, copy, modify, communicate and make available to the public (including without limitation via the Internet) and distribute, in each case in an original or modified form, the Assigned Contributions as I wish."

As Canonical states, this is a very broad grant, and it would allow the original author of the code to relicense their code contribution to any other party under terms of their choosing, including a proprietary license. In terms of rights vesting in the original author, that would seem to be a bit of an improvement over the FSF approach which only provides the original author the same license in his/her contribution that everyone else receives, i.e., a license under either the GPL or LGPL as determined by the FSF, including the determination of which version of those licenses. In any case, Canonical obtains unfettered rights to relicense the contribution in any manner it chooses and makes no commitment as to the form of such license. There is no assurance that the license Canonical uses will be a FOSS license, although Canonical states that will “ordinarily” be the case.

The Canonical agreement addresses potential patents through a promise not to sue from the contributor. But clauses 7 and 8 of the Canonical agreement place a rather heavy reporting and notification burden on the contributor:

All of this has led to significant push-back on the Canonical approach even though it is only shades of difference from the original FSF approach. The primary reason for the push-back? Probably the fact that Canonical is a commercial entity.
The article is mostly about "copyright assignment".

In the case of the FSF, it really does mean that the contributor does NOT retain ANY copyright by contributing. However, it does say that the FSF can only use the GPL set of licenses, so this guarantees that the code will remain free.

Canonical is a bit different in that the contributor retains all copyright for the contribution. However, Canonical gives itself the right to re-license your contribution under any license it chooses. Now, if Canonical does re-license the code, then the code would be under multiple licenses, so it would be dual-license.

Last edited by metaschima; 01-23-2014 at 05:48 PM.
 
Old 01-23-2014, 05:59 PM   #21
k3lt01
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2011
Location: Australia
Distribution: Debian Wheezy, Jessie, Sid/Experimental, playing with LFS.
Posts: 2,899

Rep: Reputation: 623Reputation: 623Reputation: 623Reputation: 623Reputation: 623Reputation: 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by metaschima View Post
In the case of the FSF, it really does mean that the contributor does NOT retain ANY copyright by contributing. However, it does say that the FSF can only use the GPL set of licenses, so this guarantees that the code will remain free.
If you are willing to hand ovre copyright then so be it, choices like this are made in good faith and the FSF wil not slap a Proprietary license on somethign that was originally, and intended to be perpetually, under a free license.

Quote:
Originally Posted by metaschima View Post
Canonical is a bit different in that the contributor retains all copyright for the contribution. However, Canonical gives itself the right to re-license your contribution under any license it chooses. Now, if Canonical does re-license the code, then the code would be under multiple licenses, so it would be dual-license.
What good is copyright over something once they say, in their agreement, you will waive and not enforce moral rights? The agreement is flawed in that once you agree not to pursue moral rights in essence you have agreed to give up copyright. The agreement says you retain it but you agree not to enforce it. Thats leave you, the contributor, with nothing with regards to the contribution incorporated into any Canonical project. Before we get back into the you still have your own code discussion again yes you do but you have no rights to the code within Canonical's project rather you retain the right to use your code in other projects.
 
Old 01-23-2014, 06:24 PM   #22
metaschima
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2013
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 1,533

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Yes, section 2.4 of the Canonical CLA does say
Quote:
2.4 Moral Rights.
If moral rights apply to the Contribution, to the maximum
extent permitted by law, You waive and agree not to assert
such moral rights against Us or our successors in interest, or
any of our licensees, either direct or indirect.
As for "moral rights":
Quote:
The term "moral rights" is a translation of the French term "droit moral," and refers not to "morals" as advocated by the religious right, but rather to the ability of authors to control the eventual fate of their works. An author is said to have the "moral right" to control her work. The concept of moral rights thus relies on the connection between an author and her creation. Moral rights protect the personal and reputational, rather than purely monetary, value of a work to its creator.

The scope of a creator's moral rights is unclear, and differs with cultural conceptions of authorship and ownership, but may include the creator's right to receive or decline credit for her work, to prevent her work from being altered without her permission, to control who owns the work, to dictate whether and in what way the work is displayed, and/or to receive resale royalties. Under American Law, moral rights receive protection through judicial interpretation of several copyright, trademark, privacy, and defamation statues, and through 17 U.S.C. §106A, known as the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 (VARA). VARA applies exclusively to visual art. In Europe and elsewhere, moral rights are more broadly protected by ordinary copyright law.

In the United States, the term "moral rights" typically refers to the right of an author to prevent revision, alteration, or distortion of her work, regardless of who owns the work. Moral rights as outlined in VARA also allow an author of a visual work to avoid being associated with works that are not entirely her own, and to prevent the defacement of her works.
https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/proper...ralprimer.html

I guess it basically means that you do indeed give up your copyright. It means that Canonical decides what happens to the contribution.

So, in conclusion, Canonical is like the FSF in that you give them ALL copyright, except that the FSF guarantees that it will only use GPL family licenses. Hmm ...

Doesn't this mean that the Canonical CLA contradicts itself ?

Last edited by metaschima; 01-23-2014 at 06:26 PM.
 
Old 01-23-2014, 06:42 PM   #23
k3lt01
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2011
Location: Australia
Distribution: Debian Wheezy, Jessie, Sid/Experimental, playing with LFS.
Posts: 2,899

Rep: Reputation: 623Reputation: 623Reputation: 623Reputation: 623Reputation: 623Reputation: 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by metaschima View Post
Yes, section 2.4 of the Canonical CLA does say


As for "moral rights":

https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/proper...ralprimer.html

I guess it basically means that you do indeed give up your copyright. It means that Canonical decides what happens to the contribution.

So, in conclusion, Canonical is like the FSF in that you give them ALL copyright, except that the FSF guarantees that it will only use GPL family licenses. Hmm ...

Doesn't this mean that the Canonical CLA contradicts itself ?
Highlighting by me.
Yes it does and that is what my, personal opinion, problem is with Canonical's CLA. Canonical says one thing one minute and in the same contract contradicts itself. Basically if you give up moral rights you have just given up everything to do with your contribution within any project Canonical deems your contribution would be useful in.

Just as an aside thanks for posting the American information. Even though America is considered a Common Law jurisdiction it is often different to other Commoon Law jurisdictions in its interpretation of things even though we all share precedences by virtue of "Common Law". In other words the legal basis of moral rights could be interpreted very differently in the USA than it is in say the UK or Australia etc.
 
Old 01-23-2014, 08:19 PM   #24
Captain Pinkeye
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2012
Location: The Czech Republic
Posts: 201

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by metaschima View Post
This is from groklaw (as close to a lawyer as you can get without paying):
http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic....10524120303815


The article is mostly about "copyright assignment".

In the case of the FSF, it really does mean that the contributor does NOT retain ANY copyright by contributing. However, it does say that the FSF can only use the GPL set of licenses, so this guarantees that the code will remain free.

Canonical is a bit different in that the contributor retains all copyright for the contribution. However, Canonical gives itself the right to re-license your contribution under any license it chooses. Now, if Canonical does re-license the code, then the code would be under multiple licenses, so it would be dual-license.
I understand it the same way. It's IMHO pretty obvious from the CLA itself, anyway (TobiSGD posted the link earlier):
Quote:
2.1 Copyright License
(a) You retain ownership of the Copyright in Your
Contribution and have the same rights to use or license the
Contribution which You would have had without entering
into the Agreement.
With regard to the moral rights (with moral rights in UK law, that is):
Quote:
There are a number of situations within which these rights do not apply including:

where the work is a computer program
...
http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-o...oralrights.htm

Quote:
Interestingly, the Act [australian Copyright Act 1968] has deviated from the lead set down by most other countries. In other countries, the UK for example, the creators of computer programs are excluded from the protection afforded by moral rights [7]. Under the Act, computer programs are treated as any other literary work and the individual creators of software can claim the protection afforded by moral rights.
https://www.nswscl.org.au/index.php?...ssue&Itemid=31

So basically you agree not to assert any moral rights while you don't have any anyway.
 
Old 01-23-2014, 09:22 PM   #25
k3lt01
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2011
Location: Australia
Distribution: Debian Wheezy, Jessie, Sid/Experimental, playing with LFS.
Posts: 2,899

Rep: Reputation: 623Reputation: 623Reputation: 623Reputation: 623Reputation: 623Reputation: 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Pinkeye View Post
So basically you agree not to assert any moral rights while you don't have any anyway.
Everything you stated is correct but in Australia, and possibly other countries let alone other Common Law jurisdictions, people are entitled to moral rights for IT related material. The fact that Canonical places that clause in the CLA, considering they say it is subject to the laws of England and not other Common Law jurisdictions, says to me this is a real legal minefield and they are hedging their bets. Common Law jurisdictions can, and do, use precedents set in other Common Law jurisdictions when litigation is undertaken (this is in a broad sense of Common Law). If Canonical had no chance of having a case to answer for there would be no need at all for the clause requiring the contributor gives up their morals rights.

Last edited by k3lt01; 01-23-2014 at 09:24 PM.
 
Old 01-24-2014, 12:34 AM   #26
ukiuki
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2010
Location: Planet Earth
Distribution: Debian
Posts: 1,030

Rep: Reputation: 371Reputation: 371Reputation: 371Reputation: 371
Well you see guys it is always good to look at the bigger picture, in all this there is one word to discribe this thing going on with Canonical+CLA, it is convenience.
Just read again your conclusions and you'll see the same!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by k3lt01 View Post
...Canonical says one thing one minute and in the same contract contradicts itself. Basically if you give up moral rights you have just given up everything...

...In other words the legal basis of moral rights could be interpreted very differently in the USA than it is in say the UK or Australia etc.
So they can sneakly transfer that code over seas and do as they will where it fits better!

Quote:
Originally Posted by metaschima View Post
...why would anyone pay for code that you can get for free ? Probably because they re-license the code under a proprietary license, change or add some of their own code and release it as a new proprietary program. This does defeat the original purpose of the GPL, which is to prevent GPL'd code from ending up in proprietary closed-source programs from where no giving back will ever occur...
Here again a well discribed use of the convenience for the sake of their pockets! People is working hard, really hard and for free for the sake of human kind and those bandits are taking advantage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by metaschima View Post
...Canonical is a bit different in that the contributor retains all copyright for the contribution. However, Canonical gives itself the right to re-license your contribution under any license it chooses. Now, if Canonical does re-license the code, then the code would be under multiple licenses, so it would be dual-license...
Very convenient indeed. Oh boy what they are doing is plain and simply wrong !

Now it is too bad that the reality is a very few people is aware of this situation, and possibly the vast majority of the coders don't really know either and worse they probably don't really understand what is going on otherwise they wouldn't been signing those agreements.

Regards
 
Old 01-24-2014, 01:45 AM   #27
k3lt01
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2011
Location: Australia
Distribution: Debian Wheezy, Jessie, Sid/Experimental, playing with LFS.
Posts: 2,899

Rep: Reputation: 623Reputation: 623Reputation: 623Reputation: 623Reputation: 623Reputation: 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by ukiuki View Post
Well you see guys it is always good to look at the bigger picture, in all this there is one word to discribe this thing going on with Canonical+CLA, it is convenience.
I understand what you are saying but to me it is plain old sneaky just like Gollam in LOTR.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ukiuki View Post
So they can sneakly transfer that code over seas and do as they will where it fits better!
I don't see the need for them to even do that, the agreement is pretty clear that if you agree it doesn't matter what jurisdiction you are from they are going to do whatever they want with your contribution simply because Canonical hedges its bets with the way the agreement is worded.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ukiuki View Post
Here again a well discribed use of the convenience for the sake of their pockets! People is working hard, really hard and for free for the sake of human kind and those bandits are taking advantage.
exactly right and it give me the absolute irits.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ukiuki View Post
Very convenient indeed. Oh boy what they are doing is plain and simply wrong !
Spot on assessment of the situation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ukiuki View Post
Now it is too bad that the reality is a very few people is aware of this situation, and possibly the vast majority of the coders don't really know either and worse they probably don't really understand what is going on otherwise they wouldn't been signing those agreements.
Isn't it a good thing that people, regardless of where they post this information (e.g. on their own blogs or in LQ), are willing to inform others about this.
 
Old 01-24-2014, 01:59 AM   #28
ukiuki
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2010
Location: Planet Earth
Distribution: Debian
Posts: 1,030

Rep: Reputation: 371Reputation: 371Reputation: 371Reputation: 371
Quote:
Originally Posted by k3lt01 View Post
Isn't it a good thing that people, regardless of where they post this information (e.g. on their own blogs or in LQ), are willing to inform others about this.
I have the impression it is a question(question mark missing?), if so, yes, it is a good thing.

Regards
 
Old 01-24-2014, 02:29 AM   #29
Randicus Draco Albus
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2011
Location: Wallowing in a pit of despair.
Distribution: OpenBSD
Posts: 1,391
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 424Reputation: 424Reputation: 424Reputation: 424Reputation: 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by ukiuki View Post
Well you see guys it is always good to look at the bigger picture, in all this there is one word to discribe this thing going on with Canonical+CLA, it is convenience.
Convenience?
In my view of the world, the obvious purpose of such an agreement, a "dual-licence," is to give one side (the company) the right to use a contributor's work to make money without giving any of that money to the people who did the work.
I would not call that convenience. I would call it something like legalised theft. I would be especially concerned in the case of Ubuntu, since we all know the way Mark Shuttlecrock operates.
 
Old 01-24-2014, 02:33 AM   #30
k3lt01
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2011
Location: Australia
Distribution: Debian Wheezy, Jessie, Sid/Experimental, playing with LFS.
Posts: 2,899

Rep: Reputation: 623Reputation: 623Reputation: 623Reputation: 623Reputation: 623Reputation: 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by ukiuki View Post
I have the impression it is a question(question mark missing?), if so, yes, it is a good thing.
It was a rhetorical question but it still should have had a question mark so thank you for pointing out my error.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
LXer: Linus Torvalds Says All Contributor License Agreements Are Broken LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 01-21-2014 02:41 PM
LXer: Email: A Fundamentally Broken System LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 04-07-2013 09:01 PM
LXer: Linus on Linux: The Linus Torvalds Interview Part 2 LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 04-27-2009 02:00 PM
LXer: Linus on Linux: The Linus Torvalds Interview Part 1 LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 04-23-2009 04:10 PM
Linus Torvalds log General 7 02-13-2003 09:21 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:55 PM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration