| 1 |
On 05/30/2018 01:45 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> I have a nit question: |
| 4 |
> Can we please call the agreement "FLA" instead of "CLA", since it is |
| 5 |
> derived from FSFE's FLA-2.0, and is still a FLA at it's heart, rather |
| 6 |
> than a USian-centric CLA? |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
^ That's not a 'nit question, it's a big deal!!! |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
After researching the FSFE-style "FLA", it's important: |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
https://fsfe.org/activities/ftf/fla.en.html (FAQ of sorts) |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Q) What if trustee misuses the rights I gave to them, e.g. |
| 16 |
by re-licensing Free Software as a proprietary one? |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
A) FLA offers a special clause for this kind of situation |
| 19 |
to protect the Free Software project against potentially |
| 20 |
malicious intentions of Trustee. According to this |
| 21 |
provision, if Trustee acts against the principles of Free |
| 22 |
Software, all granted rights and licences return to their |
| 23 |
original owners. That means Trustee will be effectively |
| 24 |
prevented from continuing any activity which is contrary |
| 25 |
to principles of Free Software. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
~(end quote of FAQ, etc)~ |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
That is to say: in the past, I've refused to contribute |
| 30 |
when asked for a generic copyright assignment, especially |
| 31 |
when more "permissive" (not as libre / free) licenses were |
| 32 |
already causing me to heistate. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
If it's a generic "assign all copyrights", then no. |
| 35 |
I would not sign a copyright assignment which doesn't |
| 36 |
look after my intent to work on libre / free-type works. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
yes please. do it as FLA if possible. ::thumbs up:: |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
--kuza |
Archives