On Wed, 2014-02-19 at 11:03 +0100, Fabian Keil wrote: > Hugo Roy <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Second, this is not about whether people prefer BSD/MIT-style > > > > licenses or (A/L)GPL-style. This is about assigning your copyright > > > > to an entity in a way that makes it possible for that entity to > > > > decide on their own if they want to release as proprietary > > > > software or not something that include your contribution. > > > > > > This doesn't require copyright assignment, though. The same can > > > and does happen with what you refer to as liberal licenses. > > > > Yes, and so? I don't understand your point. What we are talking > > about here is *copyright assignment*, nothing else. > > > > > > It may > > > > very well be possible that the whole is never released as Free > > > > Software at all, whether under a liberal license or under a > > > > protective license. > > > > > > Again, this doesn't require copyright assignment. > > > > And so, what's your point? > > My point is that in case of permissive licenses the licensee is > already free to reuse the software as part of a proprietary product > and thus doesn't need copyright assignment.
It does if you want to re-license the whole product (without asking the contributors) or even worse turn it to proprietary. ~nikos
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
