Thank you very much for your cogent responses and your "insider" insight.
//Robin On Apr 17, 2013, at 10:18 AM, Bruce Perens <br...@perens.com> wrote: > On 4/17/2013 10:12 AM, Karl Fogel wrote: >> Bruce Perens <br...@perens.com> writes: >>> Karl, Robin means that the work is dedicated to FSF and placed under a >>> BSD or MIT license. These are compatible with the GPL and FSF is fine >>> with it. >> Er, yes. (Was there something I said that contradicted that?) >> projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss > Just that Robin doesn't know as much about this, and it's really easy to > confuse rather than enlighten :-) > > Robin, FSF's main concern is that works meet their "Four Freedoms", which the > permissive licenses would. They have a secondary goal of using reciprocal > licensing as a strategy to increase the amount of good free software, but it > is not my understanding that they would reject a work for being permissive. > > Of course, with FSF holding the copyright they can, theoretically, determine > the license. However, they are much less likely to do this as long as there > is still an active developer running the project and the license used meets > the four freedoms. Richard Stallman knows through long experience that > pushing on developers about licensing can get them really annoyed, and the > FSF's director is more empathic than Richard and thus unlikely to do that > either. > > A more modern way for a project to donate than to assign to FSF would be to > become a member project of the Software Freedom Conservancy. This > organization is very clearly on the side of Free Software but leaves the > control of the project in the developer's hands. > > Thanks > > Bruce > _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
