From: Reinhard Mueller reinhard.mueller@bytewise.at
On 18 Aug 2001 18:38:16 +0200, Loic Dachary wrote:
This sentence allows the following scenario:
- you make modifications
- you assign copyright to MITRE
- MITRE releases your modifications under a non free software license and publish them on their web site
- you are not allowed to use your own code
- you have to remove your own modifications from your machine
I know this is unlikely but it's permitted by the license. Therefore the freedom to modify the software is crippled, hence the license is not Free Software.
Do you see any flaw in this logic ?
The license is free software, just like the BSD license (without the advertising clause). What it does not do is to enforce that the future versions of the software will stay free software, but neither does GPL. If the FSF ever is taken over all the GNU project could be transformed into proprietary software because the GNU project has a similar clause: all the software must have its copyright assigned to the FSF.
This is not really true.
- It's not true that all GNU projects _must_ have copyright assigned to
FSF. However, you are asked to do so, and it's a good choice to do so if you want your software to be incorporated into the official GNU system.
It seems that you are badly informed....
I _have_ been in discussion with FSF about this topic when talking about 'star' ~ 3 years ago.
After several other points have been agreed on, they told me that I am requested to transfer the copyright to FSF.
After I told them that I will not do this but I will allow FSF to _add_ their copyright notice to mine, they stopped with the discussion. It seems that at least for core programs FSF insists in this point which from point of view reduces freedom.
Jörg
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) If you don't have iso-8859-1 schilling@fokus.gmd.de (work) chars I am J"org Schilling URL: http://www.fokus.gmd.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.fokus.gmd.de/pub/unix
On Wed, 22 Aug 2001 12:16:16 +0200 (MET DST), Joerg Schilling said:
It seems that at least for core programs FSF insists in this point which from point of view reduces freedom.
You are right that the GNU project wants an assignment for the core OS. tar(1) is one of those important parts. Well there is a very well working tar available so it does not make sense to dispense with a copyright assignment.
I do not understand why a request for a copyright assignments reduces freedom - especially not for the assignee who is not even bound to the license and can change it as he likes.
Joerg Schilling wrote:
From: Reinhard Mueller reinhard.mueller@bytewise.at This is not really true.
- It's not true that all GNU projects _must_ have copyright assigned to
FSF. However, you are asked to do so, and it's a good choice to do so if you want your software to be incorporated into the official GNU system.
It seems that you are badly informed....
I _have_ been in discussion with FSF about this topic when talking about 'star' ~ 3 years ago.
After several other points have been agreed on, they told me that I am requested to transfer the copyright to FSF.
After I told them that I will not do this but I will allow FSF to _add_ their copyright notice to mine, they stopped with the discussion. It seems that at least for core programs FSF insists in this point which
Yes probably for core programs. That makes sense. But not for _every_ GNU program, AFAIK. And it has nothing to do with the GPL actually (and this thread is about licenses, IIRC).
from point of view reduces freedom.
From whose point of view? And whose freedom is reduced? The user's? (which is the one free software is all about)
Thanks,
On 22 Aug 2001 14:54:12 +0200, Reinhard Müller wrote:
Yes probably for core programs. That makes sense. But not for _every_ GNU program, AFAIK. And it has nothing to do with the GPL actually (and this thread is about licenses, IIRC).
Loic presented a license that he said that it wasn't a free software license because it demanded that any changed code would have its copyright given back to a determined entity. My point was that that statement was incorrect, because that, in fact, doesn't reduce the user freedom.
As an example I used the GNU project that requires handling copyright to the FSF for all translations and (as I learnt) some of the programs. AFAICS this kind of requirement doesn't limit the freedom in the software, so the Collaborative Virtual Workspace License (CVW) is, indeed, a free software license.
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jo=E3o?= Miguel Neves joao@silvaneves.org wrote:
On 22 Aug 2001 14:54:12 +0200, Reinhard M=FCller wrote:
Yes probably for core programs. That makes sense. But not for _every_=20 GNU program, AFAIK. And it has nothing to do with the GPL actually (and=20 this thread is about licenses, IIRC). =20
Loic presented a license that he said that it wasn't a free software license because it demanded that any changed code would have its copyright given back to a determined entity. My point was that that statement was incorrect, because that, in fact, doesn't reduce the user freedom.
As an example I used the GNU project that requires handling copyright to the FSF for all translations and (as I learnt) some of the programs. AFAICS this kind of requirement doesn't limit the freedom in the software, so the Collaborative Virtual Workspace License (CVW) is, indeed, a free software license.
--=20 Joao Miguel Neves
But that is not a condition of any license, but of GNU putting their name and "seal of approval" (term used usely) on the program.
The CVW license requires donating copyright on distribution (essentially). Since only distributors who are also contributors can do this, it is not a Free Software license. If it did not mean that distributors needed to transfer copyright, it should have been more clear.
-- -David "Novalis" Turner, Licensing Question Volunteer, Free Software Foundation