Re: Nuitka - GPLv3 plus contribution copyright assignment
Am 06.01.2012 05:14, schrieb Ben Finney:
Kay Hayen<firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
I want everybody to receive under "GPLv3" and then to contribute back by
default under "GPLv3 and Apache license 2.0", or optionally under "GPLv3"
At whose option?
The contributor option of course. If the contributor doesn't remove the
notice, that he licenses as "Apache license 2.0" as well, he does.
Since you're asking for opinions: I would reject the first option. If
you want to receive people's contributions under both Apache 2.0 and GPL
3.0, it's unfair to deny one of those options to recipients when you
distribute those contributions.
I am not saying I will do this. Although it would avoid to maintain a
"debian/copyright" of rather big complexity, which would be incentive
No, as it's only a contributor agreement and applies only for code that
is contributed back, I better distribute that rights to everyone at that
very moment I integrate it.
I would expect, and encourage, people to fork the work and maintain it
with the same license for all parties, without any such contributor
I would normally agree with such stance.
But why would one have the goal to keep Nuitka under GPLv3 for long, and
if the main contributors and about everybody else won't have it either?
As much as I respect principles, I doubt that anybody would put effort
into that goal. But then I do have limited imagination, as I said, my
"sunrise" plan may not be necessary or useful.
If you're saying you are happy for everyone, yourself included, to
receive any derived work under GPL 3.0, with no party required to grant
some special license as a condition of contributing, then I have no
objection to that.
How is the "Apache license 2.0" any special? And does the DFSG require
ment regulate against:
a) upstreams that accept no outside contributions or
b) upstreams that accept under the condition that they be licensed under
"Apache License 2.0"
I think it doesn't. Do you agree?
I see, you are not going to endorse my approach, that is OK. I see that
you formulate your rejection as being only personal, not something the
project should do based on social contract or DFSG.
I would like to count that as a "yes, upstreams with such contributor
agreement can enter".