|
|
Log in / Subscribe / Register

Kuhn: Why your project doesn't need a contributor licensing agreement

Kuhn: Why your project doesn't need a contributor licensing agreement

Posted Jun 19, 2014 5:06 UTC (Thu) by dakas (guest, #88146)
In reply to: Kuhn: Why your project doesn't need a contributor licensing agreement by tglx
Parent article: Kuhn: Why your project doesn't need a contributor licensing agreement

Whether it's a full assignment or the workaround of "exclusive licensing" it's simply giving your power into the hands of someone you cannot control.
The FSF assignment is a two-sided contract. The FSF is limited in the manner in which it can relicense software and/or design future GPL licenses.

So you have some amount of control.

On the other hand, you will die one day. At the very latest then you will be giving your power into the hands of someone you cannot control. And more likely than not, that person will not care about Free Software as much as the FSF.

Tangentially related, one principal component of current copyright terms is purported to have copyright last long enough that it only stops by the time everybody the author cared about is dead.

But the principal effect is actually a corollary: by the time copyright ceases, any heir caring about the author's work personally instead of as some nice additional income is dead. So when the work passes into the public domain, nobody will be around drumming for it and taking mindshare from still exploitable works.

The FSF has its own agenda, true. It may match yours better than that of your distant heirs. Rvrn if it doesn't: your heirs are not contractually bound.

Think of the copyright assignment not as much as "trusting" the FSF but rather giving it a task on your behalf. They do it in their own way, sure. But others may not do it at all.


to post comments


Copyright © 2026, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds