FSFE Newsletter - February 2014

[Hugo Roy]

+ 2014-02-15 Sat 18:06, Florian Weimer <fw at deneb.enyo.de>:

> This is a complicated topic.  I don't understand why the FSFE is
> against CLAs, considering that it granted permissions to use FLA code
> in proprietary programs (see the previous discussion about the
> agreement with Bacula Systems—the published agreement is not even
> restricted to Bacula code).

FSFE never *granted* permissions to use FLA-covered code in
proprietary programs. It simply does not have that power under the
FLA.

The text of the FLA is available to read here
http://fsfe.org/activities/ftf/fla.html

It's not that long, please have a look.

Some background on the Bacula case is available here
https://fsfe.org/activities/ftf/bacula-agreement.en.html

The bit that contradicts directly what you are saying is:

    FSFE does not endorse the existence of a non-free version, but
    FSFE cannot forbid authors to execute the rights granted by
    copyright in their own work, as long as this does not limit
    the scope of fiduciary's exclusive license.

The permission to make proprietary software was absolutely not
granted by FSFE, but directly by developers (who hold copyright in
their contributions).

-- 
Hugo Roy, Free Software Foundation Europe, <www.fsfe.org>  
Deputy Coordinator, FSFE Legal Team, <www.fsfe.org/legal>  
Coordinator, FSFE French Team, <www.fsfe.org/fr>  
 
Support Free Software, sign up! <https://fsfe.org/support>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.fsfe.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20140216/9dffc39b/attachment.sig>