On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 10:13:23AM +0100, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote: > Some produce more open source software than others, and all of these > will be ranked differently by each person differently, am I still yet > to be screwed by Canonical's projects. Please correct me if I am > wrong, but none of Canonical CA covered projects yet to […] When looking at copyright assignments to companies, the above is hardly the point, in my opinion. The "problem" (quotes because it's just the way things are) with companies is that they can be sold and bought, and the new management can have entirely different objectives, and strategies to reach it, than the former management you trusted. We have seen plenty of bad examples of this happening to "open source" companies in recent years, I'm surprised we haven't learned the lesson yet. Your "historical record" arguments here say vary little about what could happen in the future to CAA/CLAs you make to for-profit companies; the only guarantees you have are the terms of the agreements. Arguably, risks of changes in objectives and strategies exist also for non-profit organizations. But when they are much lower when those organizations have clear governance structures and contestable (it is left to the reader to judge whether FSF fits this definition). Also, the mere fact that you remove profit from the equation reduces quite a bit the overall pressure in changing objectives and strategies. Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli . . . . . . . zack@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o Former Debian Project Leader . . @zack on identi.ca . . o o o . . . o . « the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature