Re: systemd^wfoo on linux, bar on bsd,so what (Re: /bin/sh
On 13 May 2013 19:14, Russ Allbery <email@example.com> wrote:
> Philip Hands <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> No matter what the technical merits, the inevitable flame war regarding
>> copyright assignment seems very likely to render upstart a non-starter
>> as an essential element of Debian.
> Debian already uses many packages as part of its essential set that
> require copyright assignments. coreutils springs immediately to mind. I
> realize some people see a distinction between assigning copyright to the
> FSF and assigning copyright to Canonical, but I think the distinction is
> relatively fine, and certainly not strong enough alone to make it a
> non-starter, at least IMO.
I have signed Canonical's and Python Software Foundation's contributor
But I have no intention to assign copyright to FSF at the moment,
given it's past well documented bad practices at doing things for the
sake of it, instead of benefit of the wider free software community.
I'm sure there are people who hold a different opinion.
Luckily Debian source package formats handle patches very well and all
projects covered by above agreements are sufficiently open sourced for
Debian main as per Debian's Social contract & DFSG.
If one day I write a patch against an FSF project, my opinion might
change depending on the value of the patch. But I am yet to write such
a patch, FSF projects are quite good.
But I don't see it being productive to measure "hypothetical unwritten
patches" and automatically attribute those to copyright agreements.