On Friday 07 February 2014 15:17:39 Carsten Agger wrote:
The recommendation seems to imply that people who prefer or don't object to non-viral free software licenses don't value software freedom.
It does not, I think.
The original blog post[1] by Matthew Garret does not imply this. Yet, the last sentence of the summary does:
If you value software freedom, FSFE recommends you not to sign agreements which make it possible to distribute your code under non-free licenses.
While I do understand (and share) the Foundation's interest in ensuring permanent freedom of code, I think this sentence has unfortunate wording. If the first part of the sentence had been omitted, I would have no problems with it.
I think the example of Qt (also in the blog post's comments) shows the subtleties of the whole thing and helps to illustrate the point I'm trying to make:
- The CLA for the Qt project requires you to allow co-licensing the source under a proprietary license. - The owner of Qt may make the entire Qt project proprietary by first releasing it under a BSD license.
This CLA clearly makes it possible to distribute your code under non-free licenses. OTOH, the KDE-Qt agreement includes a clause that effectively prohibits the owner of Qt from making the project more closed.
I think it's totally ok for the FSFE to make a recommendation against contributing to the Qt project -- after all the foundation is trying to fight the status quo.
However, implying that anyone contributing to Qt does not value software freedom seems like a comical statement at best.
Johannes