Damien Zammit schreef op do 12-08-2021 om 12:18 [+1000]: > Hi Ludo, I'm not Ludo, but here's my response anyway.
(I'm interested in doing some small and larger things with the Hurd, but I keep being occupied by other things and I'm having a hard time understanding the inner workings ...) > On 11/8/21 11:01 pm, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > > It would be interesting to consider dropping the copyright assignment > > requirement for Hurd/Mach/MiG. For what remains primarily a hobby > > project, this looks to me like a hindrance more than anything else. > > I imagine it is slightly inconvenient for new contributors, but not a > hindrance in my opinion. > It ensures that FSF has complete control of the licensing. > For example, how will FSF upgrade the project to GPLv3 if multiple people > hold the copyright? > (There are plans to remove the GPLv2-only code btw, as Samuel said). When the code is GPLv2-or-later, replace v2 with v3 in the license notices. If the code uses GPLv2-only code, first upgrade the GPLv2-only code to GPLv3-or-later. Upgrading the GPLv2-only code might be dificult if multiple people hold the copyright, so for the GPLv2-only code, it might be a good idea to still require copyright assignment. > PS: Why are you promoting a widespread drop of FSF copyright assignment > anyway? > In my opinion, FSF is a better steward for copyright authorship than any > company > would be assuming you are working on free software on an employer's time and > don't > mutually agree with your employer to keep your own authorship. FWIW, Ludovic does not seem to be promoting assigning copyright to employers. > Even if you do keep it yourself, it makes it more difficult for anyone to > enforce > the GPL for that project. A fair point, though I don't know how accurate that is. Greetings, Maxime.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
