Earlier quoted context omitted.
Dual-license with a proprietary license is not allowed by the papers you sign when assigning copyright to the GNU project. »We promise to always keep the software free. This promise extends to any successors in the copyright, meaning that even if the FSF were to go away the freedom of all users to share in the contributions wouldn't.« — https://www.fsf.org/bulletin/2014/spring/copyright-assignmen... This is the diffe…
While surely better than Google or Ubuntu, the new license can still be non-proprietary but highly controversial.
Nano is no longer a GNU project
181–190 of 240 posts
Re: Nano is no longer a GNU project
#182Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think GPL2 -> GPL3 is a valid example of that. Usually it is to dual-license with a non-open-source license or some other incompatible open-source licenses. The GPL "upgrade" clause, > Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of t…
If your licence is GPLv2 only (like for example the linux kernel), there is NO upgrade path.
Re: Nano is no longer a GNU project
#183Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do I understand it right that Benno is doing a lot of work, but he does not want to continue the project in a manner which is consistent with the vision Chris as the principal maintainer of the project holds?
Chris does not have any vision of the project anymore. He does not have enough time even to publish releases [0]. And it was actually he who suggested Benno to fork GNU nano. [0] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.editors.nano.devel/4598/focus=...
Re: Nano is no longer a GNU project
#184Earlier quoted context omitted.
>developers don't have to assign copyright to the FSF for it to be an official GNU project This is correct, but it's up to the maintainer to decide if their project will require copyright assignment from all contributors or not. I send patches to a couple of GNU projects, Guile and Guix. Guile requires copyright assignment, Guix does not. Assigning copyright to the FSF is very much unlike assigning copyright to a for…
> Assigning copyright to the FSF is very much unlike assigning copyright to a for-profit company. The terms that you sign and agree to with the FSF are very reasonable and they protect the developer from having the license changed should the FSF be taken over by people that would want to abuse your contributions. This does not comport with my understanding of how copyright works. Once you transfer your copyright to s…
Note that in jurisdictions like Germany, it's impossible to sign away our version of copyright ('Urheberrecht', creator's rights): At most, you can grant exclusive usage rights.
Re: Nano is no longer a GNU project
#185I'm on the GNU maintainers team; I want to clarify a couple things about this: First, Nano has _not_ left the GNU project; GNU Nano still does and will continue to exist. The current maintainer of GNU Nano---Chris Allegretta---was hoping to add Benno Schulenberg as a co-maintainer, citing numerous contributions by him. Unfortunately, Benno refused to accept GNU's maintainership agreement, and so was not appointed. Be…
The copyright assignment requirements in GNU projects point to the GPL not being good enough, thereby undermining it. They are obviously rooted in the fear that in fact the FSF cannot use code that is merely GPL-ed, if someone else owns the copyright. "Use the GPL for your code to grant everyone rights and freedoms. Just not when giving to us; we would prefer your right, not your left, thank you very much." There is…
Without copyright assignment, I'm going to go over every single piece of code they say I took and I'm going to allege that the FSF does not have standing to sue because they are not the copyright owner for that particular piece of code. They will have to prove that the pieces of code they are suing over are just ones that they have the copyright on. The accuracy of how they track code ownership will become an issue, and I'll get to annoy their admins and IT guys with depositions about all that. It makes the lawsuit much messier and annoying to the FSF. Or maybe they can add all the contributors as plaintiffs, if they can get them to agree, and that would blunt my ownership arguments, but now I get to hassle all the contributors with depositions!
If the FSF owns the copyright on the whole program, all of that crap goes away. They just file copies of the copyright assignments with their lawsuit. If I want to seriously question their right to sue over some of the code after that, I'm going to have to find a way to argue that the assignment was invalid, such as arguing that the contributor did not have the right to assign copyright. That is going to take a lot of effort on my part (or on my bank account's part to pay investigators), and if the FSF was reasonably careful it is unlikely to pay off for me.
In summary, if you take code from other people AND you intend to legally try to enforce your license, then you probably should get copyright assignments. If you don't intend to enforce the license, then there is much less need.
The FSF is at least as much a political organization as it is a technical organization, and to achieve their political goals they need to enforce GPL, so they need copyright assignment.
If I, on the other hand, were to release a project under GPL, I would not care at all about enforcing GPL. I normally use a BSD license, and the only likely reason that I would be releasing a project under GPL is that I wanted to use someone else's GPL code in my project and so used that license to allow this. Hence, there would be no need for me to ask for copyright assignment.
Re: Nano is no longer a GNU project
#186Earlier quoted context omitted.
They set conditions (we will keep it free) just like any software contract where you only get the software if you promise to adhere to some rules. I don’t think the FSF ever violated the condition, so there’s nothing you can do to test whether a court would follow that interpretation.
Software contracts with conditions are license agreements. You get to use Windows, Ubuntu Linux, Photoshop, Facebook, etc. as long as you adhere to the terms of the license. You don't get the copyright. That's still held by the software company. That's how they can force you to adhere to their conditions--they own the software and they can take away your license. But if they gave you the copyright, they couldn't take…
Re: Nano is no longer a GNU project
#187Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do I understand it right that Benno is doing a lot of work, but he does not want to continue the project in a manner which is consistent with the vision Chris as the principal maintainer of the project holds?
Chris does not have any vision of the project anymore. He does not have enough time even to publish releases [0]. And it was actually he who suggested Benno to fork GNU nano. [0] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.editors.nano.devel/4598/focus=...
I did not see any evidence for this in the discussions on the mailing list. Could you give some references?
Re: Nano is no longer a GNU project
#188I'm on the GNU maintainers team; I want to clarify a couple things about this: First, Nano has _not_ left the GNU project; GNU Nano still does and will continue to exist. The current maintainer of GNU Nano---Chris Allegretta---was hoping to add Benno Schulenberg as a co-maintainer, citing numerous contributions by him. Unfortunately, Benno refused to accept GNU's maintainership agreement, and so was not appointed. Be…
Do I understand it right that Benno is doing a lot of work, but he does not want to continue the project in a manner which is consistent with the vision Chris as the principal maintainer of the project holds?
Re: Nano is no longer a GNU project
#189Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do I understand it right that Benno is doing a lot of work, but he does not want to continue the project in a manner which is consistent with the vision Chris as the principal maintainer of the project holds?
Chris does not have any vision of the project anymore. He does not have enough time even to publish releases [0]. And it was actually he who suggested Benno to fork GNU nano. [0] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.editors.nano.devel/4598/focus=...
Re: Nano is no longer a GNU project
#190Earlier quoted context omitted.
Chris does not have any vision of the project anymore. He does not have enough time even to publish releases [0]. And it was actually he who suggested Benno to fork GNU nano. [0] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.editors.nano.devel/4598/focus=...
> ...it was actually he who suggested Benno to fork GNU nano I did not see any evidence for this in the discussions on the mailing list. Could you give some references?
If folks are not interested in following that process, the best thing
might just be to move to github or another repository and abandon the
guise that we are acting according to GNU guidelines. Benno, Mike S,
Mike F, Mark M, especially interested in hearing your take.
~Chris Allegretta - http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.editors.nano.devel/4598/focus=...