> The ability to license > something as non-open in the future doesn't change the fact that what > is > currently released is open. Right, but it does make it not copyleft. So is that really what it's doing or am I reading it wrong? Not that permissive is bad, I just want to know. Because it seems like they are making everyone's contributions essentially permissive open source. So if you wanted to contribute copyleft code to snapd, you couldn't. Also, I still don't know if only Canonical has that right to relicense contributions. > Please don't let yourself get pulled into FUD about the CLA. To date > Canonical has only ever open sourced projects that had started out > closed, never the opposite. I understand that and personally I have a good opinion of Canonical. I just don't see why they would want to license things this way if they truly only had good intentions. It honestly seems like they just copy- pasted a "template" of a license and didn't notice what they accidently put in. The thing is I don't see why Canonical would need or want the right to relicense things as proprietary. On Wed, 2016-06-15 at 00:03 -0400, Michael Hall wrote: > On 06/14/2016 11:42 PM, thgntlmnfrmtrlfmdr wrote: > > > > > Hi guys, let's talk about snaps. There seems to be a problem with the > > snapd contributor's license > > agreement: > > https://assets.ubuntu.com/v1/ff2478d1-Canonical-HA-CLA-ANY-I_v1.2.pdf > > > > > > "2.3 Outbound License > > Based on the grant of rights in Sections 2.1 and 2.2, if We > > include Your Contribution in a Material, We may license the > > Contribution under any license, including copyleft, > > permissive, commercial, or _*proprietar*y_ licenses. As a > > condition on the exercise of this right, We agree to also > > license the Contribution under the terms of the license or > > licenses which We are using for the Material on the > > Submission Date." > > > > As you can see, it seems to allow Canonical to relicense any > > contribution to snapd under a closed source license. In other words, it > > doesn't seem to be copyleft at all, since Canonical can take it out of > > the open source ecosystem at any time apparently. > > > > As far as I can tell, the license isn't permissive either, since only > > Canonical can relicense stuff. Thus is appears to be a nonfree license. > > > > Am I reading this wrong? What is going on here? > > > > > >
> > > That is not a correct reading of the CLA. The ability to license > something as non-open in the future doesn't change the fact that what is > currently released is open. Technically if somebody is the sole > copyright holder on a project they always have this ability, even if > they released it under the GPL without a CLA. The open licenses in > almost all cases are perpetual, which means you can't revoke the open > license on existing code, only change it for future code. Nor are CLAs > something uncommon for open source projects, the FSF uses them, > OpenStack uses them, and many many more. > > Please don't let yourself get pulled into FUD about the CLA. To date > Canonical has only ever open sourced projects that had started out > closed, never the opposite. > > Michael Hall > mhall...@ubuntu.com > > >
-- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss