t3g wrote: > If they want, they can re-license your code to a non-free one without > your control as they own your work. Canonical is known to be shady > with their CLAs as they leverage the GPL to force you to use free > software but then change it to non-free code since they have all the > power to do so as the original copyright holder. Some say that > Upstart may have been more popular and systemd would have never > existed if Canonical was better with contributed code and them being > less draconian with forcing their own copyrights.
If Canonical licenses the software under the GPL then it doesn't matter too much if they also license it under a non-free software license. Here is the FSF advice on assigning copyright (CLA): http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/assigning-copyright.html and the obligatory RMS philosophy article on "selling exceptions": http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling-exceptions.html I think there are advantages and disadvantages either way, but having code assigned to an entity willing to defend free software seems like a good idea, but in practice might be more trouble than it's worth. Andrew
