Monday, 5 January 2015

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

On 2015-01-04 22:03, Alberto Mardegan wrote:
> On 01/04/2015 09:48 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> No, of course not. I'm struggling to make sense of Stephen's original
>> response and it seemed to make sense from that perspective. Qt (for
>> example)
>> is clearly now a free software project and it has a CLA. There are
>> others as
>> well.
> Qt's CLA is as imbalanced as the Canonical one, isn't it? In fact, I
> would claim that's even worse, because while in Canonical's case there's
> the *risk* that the software might be re-sold under a proprietory
> license, with Qt you have the *certainty* that it's been actively sold.

I suspect that most contributors which choose other projects than
Canonical's due to the CLA, will also avoid Qt for the same reason.

Nevertheless, do we actively exercise the rights given to us currently,
and do we give examples of this publicly? Otherwise we might be looked
upon as being fiddly for no understandable reason. In that sense, Qt is
actually better, because people will get a better understanding of why
the CLA is needed.

David Henningsson, Canonical Ltd.

ubuntu-devel mailing list
[email protected]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: