Multitouch support for Ubuntu 10.10 [LWN.net]

Multitouch support for Ubuntu 10.10

Posted Aug 17, 2010 13:58 UTC (Tue) by hppnq (guest, #14462)
In reply to: Multitouch support for Ubuntu 10.10 by tzafrir
Parent article: Multitouch support for Ubuntu 10.10

The FSF guarantees that they will not hijack your code. Cannonical does not.

The only sane reason to require copyright assignment, is that you can relicense the software covered by it. The FSF promises to not release the software under a non-free license, Canonical indicates that it may do exactly that. There is nothing mysterious about this.

There are several kinds of Free Software that permit this kind of behaviour, and this is certainly not universally recognized as hijacking. Although, believe it or not, some people get freaked out by the idea that their software might someday be released under GPLv4. As always, if dealing with a piece of software requires a certain amount of reading so you can enter an agreement, you should bloody well read it. Superstition ain't the way.

What happens if Oracle buys Cannonical?

Mark Shuttleworth is catapulted into space laughing hysterically and releases Ibinti upon his safe return?

(Log in to post comments)

Multitouch support for Ubuntu 10.10

Posted Aug 17, 2010 14:55 UTC (Tue) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link]

The only sane reason to require copyright assignment, is that you can relicense the software covered by it.

I disagree

Multitouch support for Ubuntu 10.10

Posted Aug 17, 2010 16:51 UTC (Tue) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link]

Over the years, there have been several examples of actual enforcement of the GPL where there were multiple copyright holders.

Multitouch support for Ubuntu 10.10

Posted Aug 17, 2010 22:30 UTC (Tue) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link]

Yes, but that doesn't make the FSF reason insane, as OP (likely unintentionally) suggested.

Multitouch support for Ubuntu 10.10

Posted Aug 17, 2010 15:34 UTC (Tue) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link]

If and when Cannonical actually makes any legally-binding promise similar to that of the FSF, I will feel more comfortable about assigning code to it. Depending also on the content of that promise. Right now, they don't.

If Oracle buys Cannonical and decides to relicense future versions of the uTrace stack under the terms of the Oracle Orthodox Permissions System, it would be hijacking. Regardless of whatever stunts Mr Shuttleworth does later on.