eikenberry 4 days ago

It was, some see the GPL2->GPL3 as a rug-pull... but it doesn't matter today as the FSF stopped requiring CAs back in 2021.

Reply View 1 reply
  • mirashii 4 days ago

    That's a harder argument to make given the "or later" clause was the default in the GPLv2, and also optional.

    Reply View 0 replies
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.

Reply View 4 replies
  • craftkiller 4 days ago

    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)

    Reply View 3 replies
    • dragonwriter 4 days ago

      > 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.

      Reply View 2 replies
      • teddyh 3 days ago

        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.

        Reply View 1 reply
        • dragonwriter 3 days ago

          I can’t reasonably excuse the FSF for it, and if you think about what the FSF’s mission and prime means of pursuing it is, I think you’ll see why your blame-outsourcing excuse doesn't really work in this case.

          Reply View 0 replies