Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

the FSF position is that GPL is unenforceable without a single copyright owner, which is why almost all gnu projects, linux, canonical/redhat/etc projects have a CLA or something functionally similar


Linux has no CLA.

DCO is something different, and not a rugpull mechanism.

Each author retains their copyright, and is not giving away anything, just licensing their contribution according to the project license.

https://developercertificate.org/

CLAs are a corporate tool for making money off of open source.


That would seem a bizarre position from the FSF, since it would make the license on combined GPL works unenforceable. Do you have a source for that?


GPL maternally depends on copyright enforcement. Who would sue if an infringement is detected? All the contributors collectively?


As with a lot of the past Linux based enforcements of the GPL, any of the contributors


main point is expressed here i think: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html

but also seems i was mistaken about the status of linux copyright, they actually do have distributed copyright, apologies




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: