Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

Jeff Garzik
2002-10-20T17:16:28Z

Ben Collins wrote:
> 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.

The whole point of the copyright assignment is that FSF becomes
copyright owner.

This is so that Jeff Garzik cannot be strongarmed into changing the
license on his code, or some other anti-software-freedom tactic levied
against me in the future. In theory, the FSF as an organization will
protect the rights of the software when I might weaken and give in.

But in exchange for that protection, you are willingly giving up your
rights as copyright owner... Less freedom for [hopefully] better
protection. Just like everything in life, it's a tradeoff... :)

Jeff