On 19/12/14 01:38 PM, j wrote: > On 13/12/14 05:17, Rob Myers wrote: > >> The Affero GPL is indeed a free software license. >> >> How do you mean "secret sauce"? > > All to often, software that uses the Affero GPL requires additional > software that is closed source, proprietary, and for which source code > is not available, to provide all of the expected functionality and > capabilities. >
Unfortunately, you could say the same thing about GPL software -- there are many cases of proprietary relicensing there too. abusus non tollit usum The AGPL is a great license for preserving freedom when used properly. In terms of actual feedback on the contributor agreement, it seems to make the preservation of freedom explicit. Section 1(c) says: "In exchange, Creative Commons agrees to apply only GPL-compatible copyleft licenses to Your Original Contributions and any works owned by Creative Commons that are based on Your Contributions." I'm no lawyer either, but it seems like the intention there is to exclude the possibility of proprietary relicensing. As a non-lawyer, the contributor agreement seems to make sense, insofar as contributor agreements go. Any reason why you feel the need for copyright assignment specifically though, versus an inbound=outbound approach? The Software Freedom Conservancy, for example, makes an argument for inbound=outbound over CLAs: https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2014/jun/09/do-not-need-cla/ Why do you feel the need for a CLA? Why not just use the AGPL? *shrugs* _______________________________________________ cc-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel
