On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 1:56 AM, thgntlmnfrmtrlfmdr < thgntlmnfrmtrlf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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. > Aren't you mixing things up? The CLA is *not* a license. It is an agreement for licensing, so by itself it is not "open-source" or "proprietary" - these terms do not apply. -- Cláudio "Patola" Sampaio MakerLinux Labs - Campinas, SP Gmail <pat...@gmail.com> - Mail EAD <pat...@techtraining.eng.br> - MakerLinux <pat...@makerlinux.com.br> - YOUTUBE <https://www.youtube.com/user/makerlinux>! Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/patolinux> - Facebook da MakerLinux <https://www.facebook.com/makerlinux> - Lattes <http://buscatextual.cnpq.br/buscatextual/visualizacv.do?id=K4763932Z5>
-- 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
