FLA

[Marc Mutz]

--Boundary-02=_sstQ+XlsQrA2lNK
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Description: signed data
Content-Disposition: inline

On Thursday 06 February 2003 22:21, Richard Moore wrote:
> Marc Mutz wrote:
<snip>
> > 1. FSF (NA) !=3D FSF Europe
>
> The FLA says 'FSF Europe and its sister organisations' so, is that
> actually true? I can't see a definition of what those organisations
> are.

It reads "sister", not "parent", does it? ;-)
The FSFE is completely separate from the FSF(NA). It was funded by the=20
original FSF in it's first three months of existence, but is now=20
completely independent.

> > 2. Read the FLA before trying to comment on it, _please_. You'd
> > have noticed that you retain all use rights, esp. are free to
> > re-license the code and re-use it anywhere you want. There's
> > nothing that effectively changes for you, except that your code is
> > cared for in court and if you lose interest or die. The contract
> > becomes void if the FSF doesn't act on your behalf, etc, etc.
>
> This says it is an exclusive license, and only grants me the right to
> further non-exclusive licenses. This implies that I don't retain the
> right to defend the copyright when I release it under another license
> (eg one that is closed source and the FSF would not want involvement
> in) - am I misunderstanding this?

In my reading of (the German version of) paragraph 5, you are given all=20
rights necessary so that you can license the program in another way. In=20
the en version, this is para. 4(2), sentence 3.

> The FLA does not make clear the version of the licenses it talks
> about. Does it mean current as in 'at the time of the agreement'
> or current as in 'at the time the license is being defended'? This
> is highly relevent to my point above.

The GPL and LGPL are in my reading mentioned as examples, indicated by=20
the introductory "in particular". IANAL. ;-)

> > 3. The question is not to assign your rights to the FSF(E), but to
> > _KDE e.V._ of which you are apparently a member. That the e.V.
> > delegates the enforcement of the (L)GPL for you to the FSFE would
> > just be a needed workaround for the fact that the e.V. is not yet
> > equipped to enforce it itself. If you don't trust the e.V., then
> > why are you are member?
>
> The fact that I am a member of the e.V. does not mean that I agree
> with everything it decides, neither does it mean that it should gain
> additional rights over my work automatically (or by policy). Does the
> fact you live in a democracy mean that you agree with everything your
> government does? of course not - that is why we have opposition
> parties. If I transfer ownership of my work, then I am saying 'I
> trust the e.V. will act in ways I am happy with from now until the
> end of eternity' - I do not.
<snip>

Look at it from this angle: If you sign a KDE-FLA-variant with KDE e.V.,=20
you only need to monitor KDE e.V.'s actions for compliance with your=20
wishes, which should be pretty easy since you are a member with voting=20
rights. OTOH, if you don't contract with KDE e.V., you'll have to=20
monitor _every_ single user of your code for compliance, and if you=20
find non-compliance, you need to go to court with all the financial=20
risk such a step involves. Or you just don't care about the=20
infringement, which then begs the question why you licensed your code=20
under the GPL and not under BSD in the first place...

Marc

=2D-=20
Ich gegen meinen Bruder.
Ich und mein Bruder gegen unseren Cousin.
Ich, mein Bruder und unser Cousin gegen unsere Nachbarn.
Wir alle gegen den Fremden.
                                      -- Beduinen-Sprichwort

--Boundary-02=_sstQ+XlsQrA2lNK
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Description: signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQA+Qtss3oWD+L2/6DgRAjwXAJ4oahiZTV6JoarnaABXDoydAE1qMACgpSPB
o82tgd+J0m1cJxVKQBRQACQ=
=riEM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Boundary-02=_sstQ+XlsQrA2lNK--