[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Nuitka - GPLv3 plus contribution copyright assignment

Hello Tanguy,

thanks for breaking it down:

#     If you (not Kay Hayen) submit patches

So far, this is a contributor agreement.

#     or make the software
#     available to licensors of this software in either form,

But here you are starting to add on the license, taking high risks
of making it non-free and requiring analysis by all the potential

That was intentional. I want people to give "GPLv3" and "ASF2.0" licenses for everything they give back to people they received the code from, so it can reach me.

No need to except yourself: I do not see any problem in you requiring
yourself to give yourself a right to relicense your own code. :-)

I just don't want to be taken by the words of the license, that would say, if I send a modification, it's ASF2.0. It being part of the notice avoids that. Of course, it can be a separate notice too, where I explain also why I do that.

Legally, it would appear like "dual licensing", right?

I do not think so. Dual licensing is usually understood as: pick the
license of your choice. Here, it rather sounds like a contributor
agreement: if you want to contribute, allow me to relicense your code
under the ASF.

On my mind, it should be possible to release all with "GPLv3+ASF2.0" and let people pick. Right? That would be DSFG compliant for sure.

I therefore consider it to be possible to release everything under "GPLv3" and apply "GPLv3+ASF2.0" for new code optionally, unless opted out by removing the notice.

Much like with any dual license, one can opt out of the dual license "GPLv3+ASF2.0" by removing either notice. Just as a hypothetical, as long as the other thing is optional, it cannot violate DFSG, can it?

And I don't propose anything non-free at all. Defaulting to giving people the "ASF2.0" rights when returning changed code, is not all non-free. It's something "ASF2.0" itself asks for.

To me it appears logical. I must also admit, it's probably so, because I don't have enough knowledge. Maybe dual licensing works different from what I believe.

Honestly, I think it would be simpler to as add a simple comment stating
that you wish to relicense it later, and for that reason ask your
contributors to license their work under AFS rather than GPL if they
want you to integrate their work. As I described before, I do not think
that has any undesired effect in practice.

When I find code anywhere, say on the Debian BTS in patch form, how do tell who owns the copyright? It's not normally traced, is it? A third person may have created it without my knowledge. And I don't dream of getting people to confirm me any better than "yeah yeah, ok" when asked, if at all.

To be on the safe side, I would like people to modify the file in order to opt out of "ASF 2.0" for new code, and then I only need to determine if somebody removed the notice, and if he didn't can freely assume that I can integrate the code.

The good about it is that the right thing happens by default. Asking people to do something, sign something, keeping records, etc. is not a burden I could carry. I am not an organization.

And in fact, once Nuitka as a whole is under "ASF2.0" only, it's the same thing too. If somebody doesn't want to put his code under "ASF2.0" and send it back, he has to remove the notice or express it somehow.

I think you should want to avoid making any modification to the license
at all, and adding a requirement for redistribution is such a

I attempted to address this by saying "or make the software available to licensors". That is not redistribution, it is contributing back, when you send the code to the source of your license, isn't it?

I think, my proposed statement is not even what I wrote about above, it's only less. It's only that if you actively send it back to where it came from that, I can take it under "ASF2.0" conditionals. It's not the full "ASF2.0" and it doesn't limit GPLv3 rights, it only extends them.


Reply to: