Tuesday, 30 December 2014

Re: [Ubuntu-bugcontrol] Please, consider reflecting on the Canonical Contributor Agreement

Stephen M. Webb:
> Aren't you violating the GPL by requiring a copyright license for
> contributions to your projects?

As I said, this is not about the license itself; but about who owns the
software and what kind of organization it encourages.

Stephen M. Webb:
> If you're going to contribute code under the GPL, you can't apply
> addition restrictions on how it's used without violating the GPL.

Exactly: the purpose of this conversation is nobody to be able to
restrict the code that is published.

Stephen M. Webb:
> In fact under most jurisdictions the default is that a project is
> unable to use your contributions at all under copyright without
> express written consent.

Then having a written consent is a good idea.

Stephen M. Webb:
> The Free Software Foundation requires that express written consent be
> in the form of total transfer of copyright to themselves.

I believe that is giving bad example, using a method that only will have
trustworthiness in foundations.

Stephen M. Webb:
> The express written consent in the form of Canonical's CLA only
> requires a grant of the same rights as the copyright holder has,
> without any change to their existing rights.

I see the point: you think there's no difference between that who holds
the copyright to be an developer or a company, because they both could
make the code non copy-left if they wished.

Well, there's a subtle difference: if someone owns the code he has
written, it's a limited amount of code. But if someone collects code
written by other people, it can be a big amount of a system.

Stephen M. Webb:
> I don't want to you be able to license you project under anything
> except the GPL if I contribute to it.

Rather I would say: I know to what I want to contribute, and that's
different than what you are proposing.

Stephen M. Webb:
> Why should I make a contribution to your project if you're going to
> make money off it and I'm not? You're getting the fruits of my
> labour for free, I should get a cut of your profits.

I have no complains about this.

Stephen M. Webb:
> Q: I'm not going contribute to you project unless you accept all my
> conditions.
> A: I'm not going to accept your contributions to my project unless
> you accept all of my conditions. The symmetry is delicious. It's OK,
> you can continue to use my work for free.

The relationship, therefore, is based on fear.

Stephen M. Webb:
> They will simply remain in the vast ranks of those who profit from my
> work without compensating me in any way.

You don't see that compensation because the mediator is no longer the
money, but other people also giving their work for free to you.

That doesn't mean that getting paid as much as you can isn't important,
but that the abundance this relationship enables has value itself for
the individual.

Speaking more clearly: a job is fulfilling when it fulfils both your
pocket and your heart. So losing the pocket just a bit for making extra
good makes you happier, and the person where people go to do business with.

And getting paid for something doesn't mean getting paid for everything.
Much of my work is given freely, because it's something I have done for
my own needs and I'm unwilling to make a business of all. So I give that
to other people so they can enjoy it too, while I put my earning where
it's more profitable (both economically and emotionally).

Stephen M. Webb:
> I am entitled to use your work for free and to be able to decide what
you do to provide it to me, because I benefit from it and I want it.

Not my way of thinking. In fact I would never considered this kind of
people in my target audiences, do you?

Stephen M. Webb:
> You're evil and you're leeching from the creators and users of Free
> software!

I don't think so. What I think is this particular decision is a mistake.

Stephen M. Webb:
> [1]http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DeveloperViolate

GPL FAQ - Developer Violate:
> Strictly speaking, the GPL is a license from the developer for others
> to use, distribute and change the program. The developer itself is
> not bound by it, so no matter what the developer does, this is not a
> "violation" of the GPL.

GPL FAQ - Developer Violate:
> However, if the developer does something that would violate the GPL
> if done by someone else, the developer will surely lose moral
> standing in the community."