Re: upstart: please update to latest upstream version
On 2012-02-25, Ben Hutchings <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Of the others, I've never got the impression that they're actively
> soliciting contributions from outside the company, though I could be
> wrong. I think free software developers rarely quibble over licences if
Qt is now actively trying to get contributions from outside the company.
And is getting quite many contributions.
Qt has worked quite a bit to get their CLA acceptable to the community.
- for example, at the desktop summit where the CLA was brand new, KDE
developers was actually discouraged from signing it at that time
because there was too much wrong with it. It got fixed, and the same
people said in october that they weren't discouraging the CLA any
longer (and it now was up to the individual wether or not they like
the concepts of CLA's to sign it)
And to explain why the CLA is needed.
- Qt has already commercial customers and obligations they need to
fulfil (mostly from before going LGPL and before trying to get
contributions from outside)
- Qt also has obligations to the KDE Free Qt foundation that they need
to be able to fulfil, should that day come
Qt also has a 'stop gap' from going completely rogue, the KDE Free Qt
Foundation, who can relicense Qt into a very liberal BSD license.
> So, why do people pick on Canonical? Partly, I think, as a reaction to
> Mark Shuttleworth's repeated arguing for copyright assignment/CLA/
> Harmony. Partly because Canonical often presents Ubuntu and related
> software as being community projects while this licencing approach can
> be seen to undermine that.
And partly because they haven't made it clear why they need the
And partly because amongst people who has read canonicals copyright
assignments, they are part of the more evil of the copyright
Rather than signing a copyright assignment, I_would prefer just license
my code going into such projects under MIT/X11. That's less paperwork,
and effectively gives enough rights for the receiver to commercialize on
I have - with a checkbox - signed the Qt CLA and contributed two small
fixes. I haven't yet stood in the actual situation of trying to
contribute code to one of Canonical's projects. Some of my friends have,
and refused the canonical copyright assignments. Their work is now
carried as distribution patches in ubuntu.