On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 10:58 PM, Xavier Combelle <xavier.combe...@gmail.com> wrote: > Le 05/01/2017 à 07:01, Ian Lance Taylor a écrit : > >> On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 8:21 PM, Xavier Combelle >> <xavier.combe...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> I was interested in contributing in golang, but was afraid to contribute >>> because of signing the CLA. After rereading it, I thought that I might be >>> too much worrying. >>> >>> Can someone explain in non juridical words what it means. >>> >>> I was particularly worried by the copyright license terms. >>> >>> "Grant of Copyright License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this >>> Agreement, You hereby grant to Google and to recipients of software >>> distributed by Google a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, >>> royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare derivative >>> works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute >>> Your Contributions and such derivative works." >>> >>> For what I understand it goes further than BSD licensing, for example it >>> doesn't imply that the BSD copyright notice must stay in code source and >>> along with binary distribution. >> I'm not sure I understand exactly what you are asking. The copyright >> license agreement, which you sign if you want to contribute code to >> the Go project, is not the same as the BSD license, which is the >> license used for the Go distribution. We explicitly don't want every >> contributor to produce their own version of the BSD license; we want >> all the code to be distributed under the copyright of "The Go >> Authors." >> >> It is true that if you sign the CLA and give the code to Google that >> Google could then re-release the code under a license other than the >> BSD license. There is no reason for Google to do that, but it would >> be permitted to do so. But that is not significantly different from >> what the BSD license permits anyhow. The BSD license, unlike, say, >> the GPL, permits additional restrictions to be placed on the code. >> The only relevant difference between the CLA and using the BSD license >> yourself is that Google could distribute the code while omitting the >> BSD license entirely. Do you find that to be troublesome? >> >> Ian >> > Yes I found very troublesome that google has the right to omit BSD license > entirely by doing that it has rights that other contributors don't have. > They have also the right to totally replace it by their license of choice
What specific rights are you concerned about? The BSD license already allows everyone to add additional restrictions, provided that they do not actually remove the BSD license. So, yes, contributing code under the CLA would permit Google to take your code and distribute it with additional restrictions and also without the BSD license used by the Go project. That is a change, but it does not seem to me to be a change that actually matters. The reason that Google writes the CLA in this way is so that people can sign a single CLA in order to contribute to any Google project. Google has many free software projects under different licenses. It's simpler for most people, and certainly simply for the project developers, if people sign a single CLA, rather than to sign a separate CLA for each project. >> We explicitly don't want every >> contributor to produce their own version of the BSD license; we want >> all the code to be distributed under the copyright of "The Go >> Authors." > > The point of using the go license as it is stated is to guarantee that by > reusing the code, contributors can't produce their own version of BSD license. That isn't what I said, and it's not what I meant. Contributors can make their own copy of the Go code and add their own license. What I meant is that the Go distribution itself, the one that we distribute on golang.org, comes with a single license. Once someone has a copy of that code, there is nothing preventing them from distributing it under a different license, as long as they also keep a copy of the BSD license. > The fact it will be distributed under this terms is pretty much guaranteed > for all distribution except precisely the distribution made by google. That is true in the limited sense that any distribution starting from golang.org has to keep a copy of the Go license, whereas Google would be permitted to make a distribution without a copy of the Go license. But that is not a big difference, since the Go license does not prohibit additional restrictions. > It looks like a huge contradiction in your speech. I'm sorry, I don't see the contradiction. > As long as CLA is necessary for google to have additionnal guarantee about > patent free contributions or different thing like that I would understand, > but giving them the right to arbitrary license beyond what already generously > allow the BSD license for the code I wrote under unknown condition is hard to > understand for me. I think this will be clearer once you understand that the BSD license does not prohibit adding additional restrictions to your own copy. To put it in free software terms, the BSD license, unlike the GPL, permits proprietary forks. Ian -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
