Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

Ben Collins
2002-10-20T15:40:10Z

On Sat, Oct 19, 2002 at 07:28:43PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Larry McVoy wrote:
> >I have no problem with the GPL, I think it's a fine license if your
> >goal is to have things done out in the open with no hoarding. A great
> >license, in fact. But I have a big problem with this constant harping
> >on the term "freedom". The GPL absolutely positively does not grant me
> >all the rights I want, it took substantial portions of my freedom away.
> >I am not free to use GPL source in any way I wish and neither is anyone
> >else.
> >
> >I'm OK with you having a free license, go make one. I'm OK with you
> >sticking with the GPL, but then you get admit that it is not a free
> >license and stop kidding yourself and others.
>
>
> At the potential cost of getting flamed, I think it is worth pointing
> out that the FSF's copyright assignment policy on several of their
> projects is _very_ anti-freedom. You are required to relinquish all
> your rights to your contributions, in exchange for the hope that the FSF
> will protect them.

Jeff, they don't force you, they require it to be turned over to them
for inclusion in the FSF proper upstream source. Also, it doesn't mean
that you lose your rights to the original piece. You can still reuse
your own source as the copyright owner.

That doesn't stop things like egcs from happening, does it? It's not
like Apple's old license that the mere releasing of your patches to the
source requires turning over non-exclusive rights.

I really hope I didn't help this thread diminish into a licensing
flamefest.

--
Debian - http://www.debian.org/
Linux 1394 - http://www.linux1394.org/
Subversion - http://subversion.tigris.org/
Deqo - http://www.deqo.com/