Re: Nuitka - GPLv3 plus contribution copyright assignment
Hello MJ,
Am 05.01.2012 12:41, schrieb MJ Ray:
// This code is in part copyright Kay Hayen, license GPLv3. This has the
consequence that
// your must either obtain a commercial license or also publish your
original source code
// under the same license unless you don't distribute this source or its
binary.
I do not agree that the above is an accurate description of the
GPLv3's consequences. Maybe "commercial" is being used when
"proprietary" is meant.
It's too short to be an accurate description. The "commercial license"
would be an exception that I grant for people unwilling or unable to
comply with GPLv3. I also wanted to make it clear, that GPLv3 allows
privacy, i.e. compiling and using code is already allowed.
I might remove the "commercial" and replace with "other" if that suites
you better. And potentially "same" with "GPLv3 compatible".
As written, it looks like an additional
restriction that can be completely ignored, as described in GPLv3
section 7.
It's also my intent for it to be an additional "right" that can be
ignored safely.
To me it means, that you cannot submit any inclusions under GPLv3 to me.
Which I find doesn't restrict your freedom, because it is already me
freedom to not accept it into my code.
And when somebody does submit do me under GPLv3, and I release it, it
becomes GPLv3 for everybody.
So, does this count as a yes? :)
I mean, this basically only avoids that I have to do formalisms to get
copyright assignments just so I don't have to reject submissions, by
changing the default of "you don't assign copyright to me" to "you do
assign to me" if you submit.
It's the same as with ASF 2.0, submitting your changes under ASF 2.0 is
optional and not the default, but the license makes it so.
Does my assumption of these 2 being equivalent hold?
[...]
# If you submit Kay Hayen patches to this software in either form, you
# automatically grant him a copyright assignment to the code, or in the
# alternative a BSD license to the code, should your jurisdiction
prevent
# this. [...]
I suspect this would be overridden by any statement included with the
patch submission, like the ASF wording acknowledges.
Of course. I can't make a contract without an agreement. My wording
might be amateurish. Requiring you to refuse me more rights.
I don't want to discuss my intent. I am not interested to discuss if my
approach is too paranoid and need not be, that may be true, but I don't
want to take the risk. This the work of most of my spare time for a long
time now.
I won't discuss this, but I will note that your intent looks a little
unfair, demanding that others grant you more permissions than you
grant them. Of course, that is your right while you are maintaining
the project, but it may limit contributions.
The fairness aspect is hard to discuss. That's clear. But since I only
accept those extra rights. so that I can later pass more rights on to
everybody, should carry weight too.
With the control of mine comes limitation. I am fully aware that I might
miss out potential contributions because of that. But as I said, there
is a plan to lift those "restrictions" later on.
About fairness, just let me say, I would consider it unfair, to find
myself in a situation where I couldn't compete as a free software
project with a fork of my own code.
Yours,
Kay
PS: I won't give examples I have on my mind, as that will only detract,
as people start to discuss the merits of the example. :-)
Reply to: