CUPS License Change Coming

Re:CUPS License Change Coming by cyphar on Friday November 10, 2017 @09:11AM (#15669946)

There are valid reasons to sign a CLA, though they are vary rare. I believe the FSF CLA is the only one I would ever feel confident signing (because it very strongly restricts what they can do) -- mainly because it means that the FSF has a much stronger case (legally speaking) if it decides to file a copyright suit against an alleged infringement of the work. From my (not-an-American-and-definitely-not-a-lawyer) understanding, American copyright suits are much stronger if you hold a majority copyright over a work rather than only having a very small set of contributions you own.

But really, licensing things under GPLvX-or-later is the best way of handling licensing updates with many contributors.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:CUPS License Change Coming by notl4wy3r on Friday November 10, 2017 @12:43PM (#15671519)

For example, one possible reason to sign a CLA is if you want to contribute, and the repository owner will not allow you to do so otherwise. It may be that you value contributing more highly than what license later versions of the code use. At least for me, that would typically be the case.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:CUPS License Change Coming by kobeya on Friday November 10, 2017 @03:21PM (#15672632)

> But really, licensing things under GPLvX-or-later is the best way of handling licensing updates with many contributors.

Even worse. Now the FSF, or whoever wrestled control of the FSF in he future, has the authority to relicense as they see fit.

No, I stated my preferences when I licensed it the first time. If that doesn’t work for you in the future, tough beans.

[ Parent | on HN ]