Comment by ilc
4 days ago
Yes.
The FSF requires assignment so they can re-license the code to whatever new license THEY deem best.
Not the contributors.
A CLA should always be a warning.
4 days ago
Yes.
The FSF requires assignment so they can re-license the code to whatever new license THEY deem best.
Not the contributors.
A CLA should always be a warning.
IANAL but their official reason for the CLA seems pretty reasonable to me: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.en.html
tl;dr: If someone violates the GPL, the FSF can't sue them on your behalf unless they are a copyright holder.
(personally I don't release anything under virus licenses like the GPL but I don't think there's a nefarious purpose behind their CLA)
> If someone violates the GPL, the FSF can't sue them on your behalf unless they are a copyright holder.
This seems to be factually untrue; you can assign specific rights under copyright (such as your right to sue and receive compensation for violations by third parties) without assigning the underlying copyright. Transfer of the power to relicense is not necessary for transfer of the power to sue.
Whether or not it is acually true, this is what their lawyer has told them, and so the FSF is acting accordingly. You can’t reasonably blame them for that.
1 reply →