Linus Torvalds: Any CLA Is Fundamentally Broken

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Linus Torvalds: Any CLA Is Fundamentally Broken

Posted by samzenpus on Monday January 20, 2014 @11:30AM from the no-sir-I-don't-like-it dept.

sfcrazy writes "The controversy over Canonical's Contributor License Agreement (CLA) has once again surfaced. While Matthew Garrett raises valid points about the flaws in Canonical's CLAs, Linus Torvalds says 'To be fair, people just like hating on Canonical. The FSF and Apache Foundation CLA's are pretty much equally broken. And they may not be broken because of any relicencing, but because the copyright assignment paperwork ends up basically killing the community. Basically, with a CLA, you don't get the kind of "long tail" that the kernel has of random drive-by patches. And since that's how lots of people try the waters, any CLA at all – changing the license or not – is fundamentally broken.'"

279 comments

Spell it out the first time by tepples · 2014-01-20 11:34 · Score: 5, Insightful

Why doesn't the summary for articles like these spell out unfamiliar abbreviations such as "contributor license agreement"?
1. Re:Spell it out the first time by DaKritter · 2014-01-20 11:36 · Score: 3
  
  Thanks! And I could not agree more.
2. Re:Spell it out the first time by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 11:38 · Score: -1
  
  SHHH! Shut up! Or Linux will hear you!
3. Re:Spell it out the first time by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 11:40 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  I guess CLA clearly doesn't stand for "Clear and Labeled Acronym"...
4. Re:Spell it out the first time by icebike · 2014-01-20 11:40 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  I'm pretty sure they were talking about Conjugated linoleic acid. After all, that is the number one hit in google.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
5. Re:Spell it out the first time by bob_super · 2014-01-20 11:42 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  I was going for Chlamydia, Lupus and AIDS, and then I remembered that House has been finished for a while.
6. Re:Spell it out the first time by techno-vampire · 2014-01-20 11:42 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Because the submitter doesn't know how to do it right, and the "editors" don't know how to do their job. What else do you expect from Slashdot?
  
  --
  Good, inexpensive web hosting
7. Re:Spell it out the first time by TheloniousToady · 2014-01-20 11:43 · Score: 2
  
  Glad I'm not the only one who hadn't heard that one. I Googled it ASAP and got a page full of "Conjugated Linoleic Acid". Then, I went to TFA (Teach For America) and found the TLA (Title-Leading Acronym) PDQ.
8. Re:Spell it out the first time by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 11:43 · Score: 0
  
  In the future, why not just replace your post with the universally-understood acronym "SIOTFT"? You could save a lot of wear and tear on your keyboard, not to mention that you could use the time you save to raise money for cancer research.
9. Re:Spell it out the first time by gallondr00nk · 2014-01-20 11:44 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Or mention the problem people have with the Canonical CLA in the first place, which according to TFA is the requirement that contributers sign an agreement that gives Canonical the right to relicense their contribution under a proprietary licence.
10. Re:Spell it out the first time by TWX · 2014-01-20 11:51 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Because the submitter doesn't know how to do it right, and the "editors" don't know how to do their job. What else do you expect from Slashdot?
  I used to expect a lot more from Slashdot, but now that none of the old-guard are left it's steadily and inexorably slipping in the same fashion that kuro5hin, The Register, and other tech sites have slipped.
  
  In case you didn't know, there are holding companies buying up forums, news sites, aggregators, etc. At this point half-a-dozen automotive forums that I've used are now under one company, and that company milks the forums for advertising revenue without really policing the forums for abuse anymore. Since those forums lack a community-policing method like Slashdot and a few others there's very little to stop the race to the bottom as suddenly off-topic discussions, especially politics, come to pollute the original purpose with garbage that has nothing to do with cars.
  
  These companies often don't advertise that they're in charge of so many forums, but some like The HAMB do. I encourage people to leave forums that head down this route, it's the only way to let these companies know that we don't appreciate what they're doing. Unfortunately that's probably a losing battle as there are a lot more users to replace those that walk away.
  
  --
  Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
11. Re:Spell it out the first time by Chuck+Chunder · 2014-01-20 11:54 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Cryptic Letter Algorithm?
  
  --
  Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
12. Re:Spell it out the first time by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 11:58 · Score: -1
  
  If you don't know what CLA means, then this article does not apply to you so you can move along.
13. Re:Spell it out the first time by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 12:01 · Score: 1
  
  As the "editors" couldn't be bothered:
  
  sfcrazy writes "The controversy over Canonical's Contributor License Agreement (CLA) has once again surfaced. (Ed: Insert link to previous story) While Matthew Garrett raises valid points about the flaws in Canonical's CLAs, Linus Torvalds says 'To be fair, people just like hating on Canonical. The Free Software Foundation and Apache Foundation CLA's are pretty much equally broken. They may not be broken because of any relicencing but because the copyright assignment paperwork ends up killing the community. With a CLA, you don't get the kind of "long tail" that the kernel has, of random drive-by patches. Since that's how lots of people try the waters, any CLA at all â" changing the license or not â" is fundamentally broken.'"
  I fixed some of Linus's grammar while I was at it. Quote or not that was awful.
14. Re:Spell it out the first time by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 12:03 · Score: 0
  
  Ok so what's the alternative to slashdot?
15. Re:Spell it out the first time by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 12:04 · Score: 0
  
  Yes. Absolutely crappy summary. If submitters can't be bothered explaining what they're talking about, reject their submission.
16. Re:Spell it out the first time by rgmoore · 2014-01-20 12:05 · Score: 1
  
  Forget it Jake. It's Slashdot.
  
  --
  There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
17. Re:Spell it out the first time by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 12:08 · Score: 0
  
  Then maybe you should be either of the aforementioned people? Because you're so blatantly awesome at what you do.
18. Re:Spell it out the first time by Stormy+Dragon · 2014-01-20 12:09 · Score: 2
  
  Yeah, I was trying to figure out what's wrong with Command Line Arguments.
19. Re:Spell it out the first time by kelemvor4 · 2014-01-20 12:10 · Score: 1
  
  Why doesn't the summary for articles like these spell out unfamiliar abbreviations such as "contributor license agreement"?
  PSSH. Everyone knows this article is about the computer law association.
20. Re:Spell it out the first time by kelemvor4 · 2014-01-20 12:12 · Score: 1
  
  Because the submitter doesn't know how to do it right, and the "editors" don't know how to do their job. What else do you expect from Slashdot?
  I used to expect a lot more from Slashdot, but now that none of the old-guard are left it's steadily and inexorably slipping in the same fashion that kuro5hin, The Register, and other tech sites have slipped. In case you didn't know, there are holding companies buying up forums, news sites, aggregators, etc. At this point half-a-dozen automotive forums that I've used are now under one company, and that company milks the forums for advertising revenue without really policing the forums for abuse anymore. Since those forums lack a community-policing method like Slashdot and a few others there's very little to stop the race to the bottom as suddenly off-topic discussions, especially politics, come to pollute the original purpose with garbage that has nothing to do with cars. These companies often don't advertise that they're in charge of so many forums, but some like The HAMB do. I encourage people to leave forums that head down this route, it's the only way to let these companies know that we don't appreciate what they're doing. Unfortunately that's probably a losing battle as there are a lot more users to replace those that walk away.
  It's true, DICE knows how to kill a website. Hopefully someone will create an alternative that garners an interesting audience someday.
  
  Memories....
21. Re:Spell it out the first time by TWX · 2014-01-20 12:14 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  If you want news and articles, honestly Yahoo's News is not too bad. It's about the only thing going left under a Yahoo URL that's worth using, and I find it to be better than Google News.
  
  And as sad as this is, there are lots of Youtube channels dedicated to geeky subjects that I sometimes learn things from before they appear on Slashdot or other sites.
  
  For discussion, no idea what to say. It appears that you're stuck here.
  
  --
  Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
22. Re:Spell it out the first time by kesuki · 2014-01-20 12:20 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Complete
  Loss
  Altogether
  google is worthless urban dictionary equally so, and it's not in the jargon file. this is classic slashdot, making up acronyms no one can figure out. wikipedia had the best page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CLA
  but i can't figure out how a command line argument is related.
  
  --
  https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
23. Re:Spell it out the first time by John+Bokma · 2014-01-20 12:21 · Score: 1
  
  No. Because shitty editing drives traffic.
  
  --
  
  Perl Programmer for hire
24. Re:Spell it out the first time by rahvin112 · 2014-01-20 12:22 · Score: 2
  
  It's not like it's ever been better. I don't think the editors have EVER read submissions. I mean seriously, complaining about that is like complaining that users don't read the article or the summary before commenting. It's always been like that, it always will, complaining about it wastes your time so don't bother.
  And it's not like the editors read the comments either which makes the complaining totally pointless as well.
  This is slashdot, there aren't editors (in the traditional sense), no one reads the articles and everyone has an opinion regardless. If you know and understand that, the time wasted on here will be better spent.
25. Re:Spell it out the first time by lgw · 2014-01-20 12:27 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Chlamydia, Lupus and AIDS
  What are "better things than Dice's editing", Alex?
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
26. Re:Spell it out the first time by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 12:30 · Score: 1
  
  It would just be CA, because it's never lupus.
27. Re:Spell it out the first time by Phroggy · 2014-01-20 12:31 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I used to expect a lot more from Slashdot, but now that none of the old-guard are left it's steadily and inexorably slipping in the same fashion that kuro5hin, The Register, and other tech sites have slipped.
  The "old guard" editors didn't know how to do their jobs either. Note my user ID; I remember. I come here for the comments, not the articles.
  
  --
  $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
  $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
28. Re:Spell it out the first time by plopez · 2014-01-20 12:33 · Score: 1
  
  CIO and Datamation
  
  --
  putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
29. Re:Spell it out the first time by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 12:39 · Score: 0
  
  One of the slashboxes I have on the front page is "this day on slashdot" which has 5 popular slashdot stories going back several years. People back in 2003 were rnaking the exact same complaints of the place going downhill way back then. Sarne cornplaints about the editors sucking. Sarne cornplaints about the stories not being "news for nerds". Sarne cornplaints about the shitty cornrnents...
  The place has changed but the cornplaints have stayed the sarne.
30. Re:Spell it out the first time by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 12:49 · Score: 0
  
  > I used to expect a lot more from Slashdot, but now that none of the old-guard are left it's steadily and inexorably slipping in the same fashion that kuro5hin
  Dunno what you are on about... I remember people complaining about how /. had gone to shit... in 2002.
31. Re:Spell it out the first time by JustOK · 2014-01-20 12:55 · Score: 1
  
  Command Line Arguments. What you use when you can't use the Gooder User Interface (GUI) which is how computers were born to be.
  
  --
  rewriting history since 2109
32. Re:Spell it out the first time by Somebody+Is+Using+My · 2014-01-20 13:00 · Score: 1
  
  And if Yahoo isn't for you, there is still always Usenet ;-)
33. Re:Spell it out the first time by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 13:05 · Score: 0
  
  Reddit.
34. Re:Spell it out the first time by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 13:13 · Score: -1
  
  Because they hope your interest will fuel the very slightest bit of initiative, like the ~5 seconds it takes to Google it?
  
  Just a guess, but it worked for me! No whinging here about such a trivial matter. I mean, if you are seeing this site anyway, you are definitely online...
35. Re:Spell it out the first time by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 13:15 · Score: 0
  
  It would just be CA, because it's never lupus.
  HAH HAH! We both got the reference! We are like brothers, you and I. No longer are we isolated little Internet egos, disconnected from all of mankind. We understand what all those OTHERS do not. Therefore you absolutely MUST be modded up.
36. Re:Spell it out the first time by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 13:18 · Score: 0
  
  golly, is it possible that The They (tm) absolutely realize their power is weakening as their media gatekeepers role of chokepoint of society becomes distributed and democratized across the inertnet tubes, and the propaganda model falters ? ? ?
  gee, *why is* the gummint/military buying software which allows an operator to spoof hundreds of sockpuppets ? ? ? gee, i'm betting no private companies do that either...
  gosh, do you think they could buy up popular forums where an online meeting of the minds takes place, understanding and tolerance appear spontaneously among tight-knit online communities, and potential breeding grounds for -*gasp*- sheeple organizing to the point of baring their fangs at Empire ? ? ?
  hmmm, do you think the 85 zillionaires who 'own' half the world, could afford the chump change to buy out every two-bit website and media outlet in the world with a vibrant sense of community, and proceed to run it in the ground, and poison that ground to boot...
  surely *that* couldn't be the case, could it ? ? ?
37. Re:Spell it out the first time by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 13:18 · Score: 0
  
  Ok so what's the alternative to slashdot?
  Arstechnica.com
  At least half the stories here are taken from Ars or Wired, but Ars has a decent comment system unlike the mass of bullshit that Wired has devolved into.
38. Re:Spell it out the first time by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 13:19 · Score: 1
  
  i dont bother with it anymore, if they are too stupid to know that people are not going to pick up whatever acronym buzzbullshit is in fad this month then I am not interested in reading the tripe that follows
39. Re:Spell it out the first time by multimediavt · 2014-01-20 13:26 · Score: 1
  
  Why doesn't the summary for articles like these spell out unfamiliar abbreviations such as "contributor license agreement"?
  You were expecting journalism majors to be editors of /. ??? ROFLMFAO
40. Re:Spell it out the first time by multimediavt · 2014-01-20 13:28 · Score: 2
  
  Chlamydia, Lupus and AIDS
  What are "better things than Dice's editing", Alex?
  Ooo...Maybe we should get Watson to replace the /. editors? Brilliant!
41. Re:Spell it out the first time by synaptik · 2014-01-20 13:34 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Yes; but back then it was because they were amateurs, doing this for a hobby.
  
  --
  HSJ$$*&#^!#+++ATH0
  NO CARRIER
42. Re:Spell it out the first time by ChunderDownunder · 2014-01-20 13:38 · Score: 1
  
  Submissions also contain lots of link-bait to Phoronix or the verge.
43. Re:Spell it out the first time by CauseBy · 2014-01-20 13:40 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Seriously. I've been reading since 1999 (under different accounts) and trust me, the editing was definitely even worse back then. We used to have mis-spelled words, broken links, and sentences the cut off in the mi
44. Re:Spell it out the first time by cluening · 2014-01-20 13:40 · Score: 1
  
  I read this summary just so I could see how many times the obscure acronym was used without definition. It met my expectations!
  
  --
  Posted from the wireless couch.
45. Re:Spell it out the first time by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 13:51 · Score: 0
  
  What else do you expect from Slashdot?
  The same article republished next week, only with more typos and broken links.
46. Re:Spell it out the first time by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 13:51 · Score: 0
  
  Dunno what you are on about... I remember people complaining about how /. had gone to shit... in 2002.
  Yeah but this time we mean it.
47. Re:Spell it out the first time by VortexCortex · 2014-01-20 13:54 · Score: 1
  
  there's very little to stop the race to the bottom as suddenly off-topic discussions, especially politics, come to pollute the original purpose with garbage that has nothing to do with cars.
  Yeah, just like your horrible car analogy.
48. Re:Spell it out the first time by thaylin · 2014-01-20 13:55 · Score: 0
  
  Yea, if you google CLA you dont remotely get what it means in 5 seconds, maybe a few minutes after you get past the Certified Linux Admin and many others.
  
  --
  When you cant win, ad hominem.
49. Re:Spell it out the first time by haruchai · 2014-01-20 13:57 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  I was wondering how much Linus knows about Conjugated Linoleic Acids.
  
  --
  Pain is merely failure leaving the body
50. Re:Spell it out the first time by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 14:00 · Score: 0
  
  That's what you said back then, too.
51. Re:Spell it out the first time by haruchai · 2014-01-20 14:01 · Score: 1
  
  So is this the abstract or the 1st draft?
  
  --
  Pain is merely failure leaving the body
52. Re:Spell it out the first time by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 14:01 · Score: 0
  
  Why doesn't the summary for articles like these spell out unfamiliar abbreviations such as "contributor license agreement"?
  The answer is slipshod and unprofessional behavior from the editors..
53. Re:Spell it out the first time by fractoid · 2014-01-20 14:03 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The issue isn't that it's an unfamiliar abbreviation, the issue is that the TLA namespace is so horribly cluttered now that CLA could mean any one of between 74 and 85 different things.
  
  --
  Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
54. Re:Spell it out the first time by terryk29 · 2014-01-20 14:16 · Score: 1
  
  In case you didn't know, there are holding companies buying up forums, news sites, aggregators, etc. ...and that company milks the forums for advertising revenue without really policing the forums for abuse anymore.
  I guess that may explain those forums that now have those annoying "imposed" hyperlinks on users' posts - i.e. where some word is emphasized by the hosting system (i.e. not the poster), and if you hover on it you get some popup link. Sure, it's pretty obvioius (esp. since they at least use a different look e.g. a dashed underline) but I still find it distracting and annoying (if not insulting).
55. Re:Spell it out the first time by radarskiy · 2014-01-20 14:19 · Score: 2
  
  Amateurs at least have pride and self-respect.
56. Re:Spell it out the first time by Maintenance+Goof · 2014-01-20 14:23 · Score: 1
  
  Sadly you can't mod it up since you commented on it. Don't worry though, I will mod it up for ... Doh!
57. Re:Spell it out the first time by S.O.B. · 2014-01-20 14:38 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Knowing that "CLA" was sure to generate a rather broad result I searched for "Canonical CLA" and it's the first hit.
  
  --
  Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
58. Re:Spell it out the first time by ShanghaiBill · 2014-01-20 14:40 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Because they hope your interest will fuel the very slightest bit of initiative, like the ~5 seconds it takes to Google it?
  I tried Googling it. Google said it meant "Conjugated Linoleic Acid". According to the linked Wikipedia article, it is high in trans-fat, so it is a good thing that Linus doesn't care for the stuff.
59. Re:Spell it out the first time by Rob+Riggs · 2014-01-20 14:48 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  If you want news and articles, honestly Yahoo's News is not too bad.
  And if you need personal or professional advise, there's no better place than Yahoo! Answers."
  
  --
  the growth in cynicism and rebellion has not been without cause
60. Re:Spell it out the first time by dreamchaser · 2014-01-20 15:11 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Because they hope your interest will fuel the very slightest bit of initiative, like the ~5 seconds it takes to Google it?
  Just a guess, but it worked for me! No whinging here about such a trivial matter. I mean, if you are seeing this site anyway, you are definitely online...
  That's a bullshit answer. It is standard practice in good writing to say what an acronym or abbreviation means the first time it's used. Afterwards using the shortened version is just fine.
61. Re:Spell it out the first time by Minwee · 2014-01-20 15:13 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Ooo...Maybe we should get Watson to replace the /. editors? Brilliant!
  If Watson's busy, I would settle for ELIZA.
62. Re:Spell it out the first time by philip.paradis · 2014-01-20 15:24 · Score: 1
  
  Just what are you trying to imply here, something or other about programmers, sheep, and conjugal concerns? You've got a sick mind my friend, just plain sick.
  
  --
  Write failed: Broken pipe
63. Re:Spell it out the first time by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 15:43 · Score: 0
  
  Oh, I was way off. I thought the Canadian Lacrosse Association was finally going to get some serious backers.
64. Re:Spell it out the first time by hax4bux · 2014-01-20 15:45 · Score: 1
  
  Chips and Dips could be awful, but it was better than the alternatives.
65. Re:Spell it out the first time by gaelfx · 2014-01-20 16:10 · Score: 1
  
  Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
66. Re:Spell it out the first time by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 16:11 · Score: -1
  
  Because they hope your interest will fuel the very slightest bit of initiative, like the ~5 seconds it takes to Google it? Just a guess, but it worked for me! No whinging here about such a trivial matter. I mean, if you are seeing this site anyway, you are definitely online...
  Fuck you. Really. I did google it, and found, among other things -not- contributor licence agreement, Conjugated linoleic acids. Eat me, asshole.
67. Re:Spell it out the first time by hawk · 2014-01-20 16:16 · Score: 3
  
  Yeah, but the 3 digit IDs are suspect: you guys all caved instantly when taco insisted on cookies . . . some of us held out a while before caving. :)
  hawk, who still blocks almost all cookies
68. Re:Spell it out the first time by Horshu · 2014-01-20 16:20 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe it does...Torvalds tends to think a lot of things in the world are broken.
69. Re:Spell it out the first time by devphaeton · 2014-01-20 16:34 · Score: 1
  
  Google Groups has all but destroyed Usenet unfortunately.
  That said, I still tolerate it when reading a few groups.
  As for the grandparent poster- A bunch of musician friends and I got fed up with Harmony Central and created our own private, invite-only forum where we discuss music and gear and perpetuate our own memes.
  
  --
  
  do() || do_not(); // try();
70. Re:Spell it out the first time by OhANameWhatName · 2014-01-20 16:37 · Score: 1
  
  Yes; but back then it was because they were amateurs, doing this for a hobby.
  yeah.. money ruins everything.
71. Re:Spell it out the first time by sconeu · 2014-01-20 16:40 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Tell me about settle for ELIZA?
  
  --
  General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
72. Re:Spell it out the first time by sconeu · 2014-01-20 16:45 · Score: 1
  
  Dude, check out eternal-september.org. Full NNTP.
  
  --
  General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
73. Re:Spell it out the first time by beernutz · 2014-01-20 16:55 · Score: 1
  
  I had to Google it as well, and came up with: Certified Linux Administrator
  Relevant, but still wrong.
  
  --
  (stolen from DaBum) I am dyslexia of borg - your ass will be laminated.
74. Re:Spell it out the first time by Fnord666 · 2014-01-20 17:14 · Score: 1
  
  And if you need personal or professional advise, there's no better place than Yahoo! Answers.
  +1 ROFLMAO
  
  --
  'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
75. Re:Spell it out the first time by TheSeatOfMyPants · 2014-01-20 17:24 · Score: -1, Flamebait
  
  It is standard practice in good writing to say what an acronym or abbreviation means the first time it's used. Afterwards using the shortened version is just fine.
  It's also standard practice in good writing to say what something is "fraught" with, use a negation before "anymore" in a statement (as in "Idon't go there anymore"), and use an adjective when describing a group's gender (e.g. "female writer"). Then again, it's also standard practice in web development to make sure a new design isn't a user-repellent clusterfuck before releasing it as a public beta.
  Some somewhat-standard reasonably-good writing with examples of the above:
  "He stared in horror at the flaming supply room, suddenly realizing his explanation was fraught with contradictions."
  "Sorry, I don't let visitors carrying sledgehammers in the server room anymore."
  ""No," he snarled, "I'm a male android collector, I do not have a bunch of naked robot-boys in my office!"
  "I stared at Slashdot Beta in horror. "Uh, guys? I think I know where the LSD-pot combo brownies went...""
  Bonus: suppose vs. supposed:
  "Supposed" is about what an authority allows/requires : "I wasn't supposed to park in the boss' space, but given I'd just rammed his Beamer with a snowplow, company rules were the least of my problems."
  "Suppose" refers to an assumption: "I suppose they're here to arrest me for attempting to mate the snowplow with a bus. Damn."
  To preempt the usual anti-education crowd: I can't really be a 'grammar Nazi' given the rules already weren't being taught when I was a kid; I'm going purely by what I learned naturally from reading tons of books over the years.
  --
  Please ignore any missing spaces; Slashdot randomly ignores the ones I put in.
  
  --
  Now mostly at Usenet:comp.misc & SoylentNews.org (it's made of people!)
76. Re:Spell it out the first time by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 17:26 · Score: 0
  
  If you want news and articles
  Nobody comes to Slashdot to RTFA.
77. Re:Spell it out the first time by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 17:31 · Score: 0
  
  Reddit is a corporate playground. Conversations there are owned and managed by Social Media Marketing (SMM) bots and sockpuppets.
  Even more so than Slashdot, believe it or not.
78. Re:Spell it out the first time by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 18:02 · Score: 0
  
  Here's what the Google dictionary add-on has to say (always works, which is why I use it):
  Clã (English: Clan) is a Portuguese pop-rock band of a mixed nature in terms of style, ranging from moments of pure balladry, through jazzy details, to enthusiastic pop songs. They are currently regarded as one of the best Portuguese bands. ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clã
  Thanks Google, I like them!
79. Re:Spell it out the first time by gmhowell · 2014-01-20 18:20 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Please, you four digit guys are so old that Alzheimer's is kicking in and you don't really remember what things used to be like. People with five digit ID's, OTOH, have been around a while yet are still young and sexy without a brain full of swiss cheese.
  
  --
  Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
80. Re:Spell it out the first time by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 18:54 · Score: 0, Offtopic
  
  Because they hope your interest will fuel the very slightest bit of initiative, like the ~5 seconds it takes to Google it?
  Don't be a cunt. The first search result for CLA is conjugated linoleic acids. The second is a type of four-dour coupe from Mercedez-Benz. After that is Collegiate Learning Assessment and California Library Association.
81. Re:Spell it out the first time by Stolpskott · 2014-01-20 19:14 · Score: 1
  
  I was wondering how much Linus knows about Conjugated Linoleic Acids.
  Quite a bit, it seems. After all, he has been able to analyse the CLAs produced by several other sources and determined that they are broken. So he must know as much or more about them than the FSF and Apache biochemists who produced the Acids for those organisations... although why the FSF and Apache Foundation would need or want such materials is beyond me...
82. Re:Spell it out the first time by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 19:26 · Score: 0
  
  Compact Letter Abbreviation.
83. Re:Spell it out the first time by fnj · 2014-01-20 19:37 · Score: 1
  
  What were we talking about again?
84. Re:Spell it out the first time by ByteSlicer · 2014-01-20 19:49 · Score: 1
  
  A five digit ID? I'll get off your lawn now.
85. Re:Spell it out the first time by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 19:56 · Score: 0
  
  Okay, I have to admit that this is the first reverse uid length pissing match I've seen here.
86. Re:Spell it out the first time by wonkey_monkey · 2014-01-20 20:03 · Score: 1
  
  Because samzenpus doesn't read what he's given.
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
87. Re:Spell it out the first time by josgeluk · 2014-01-20 21:16 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks, I was stuck at Command Line...something.
88. Re:Spell it out the first time by Barsteward · 2014-01-20 21:38 · Score: 1
  
  you could spend another 5 seconds logging in, perhaps thats what the previous poster did
  
  --
  "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
89. Re:Spell it out the first time by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 23:04 · Score: 0
  
  Linus Torvalds: Any Command-Line Argument Is Fundamentally Broken
90. Re:Spell it out the first time by zoward · 2014-01-20 23:09 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Also, the Slashdot editors need to understand that when they don't spell out these acronyms the first time they use them, the first half of the comments section is going be discussing the lack of proper acronym definition and poor editorial skills instead of, you know, the actual article content. Just sayin'.
  
  --
  "Can't you see that everyone is buying station wagons?"
91. Re:Spell it out the first time by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-21 00:06 · Score: 0
  
  The Zen of a perfect society from what i have studied is not about the spiritual upliftment of its citizens but placing a bunch of over motivated back stabbers at the top with a bunch of entitled shit heads at the bottom and produce + over hype a semi working/expensive as hell product product (citiation: scsi,iphone,unix) i kid....
92. Re:Spell it out the first time by jalopezp · 2014-01-21 00:23 · Score: 1
  
  He actually loves it. In fact, he was named after Linoleic Acid.
93. Re:Spell it out the first time by Spacelem · 2014-01-21 00:24 · Score: 1
  
  I've had half a lifetime since I got my 6 digit ID.
94. Re:Spell it out the first time by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-21 00:42 · Score: 0
  
  He hates that someone would take perfectly good Linoleic Acid and conjugate it.
95. Re:Spell it out the first time by u38cg · 2014-01-21 00:52 · Score: 1
  
  That is interseting. Please continue.
  
  --
  [FUCK BETA]
96. Re:Spell it out the first time by geminidomino · 2014-01-21 01:12 · Score: 1
  
  That gives you NNTP access, but I think what GP meant was that Google finished the job that AOL started when they kicked off the Eternal September.
  Posted this day, Tuesday, September 7447, 1993.
97. Re:Spell it out the first time by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-21 01:18 · Score: 0
  
  Don't believe everything you read on Google. CLA means "Clean, Lube, and Adjust". Any camera repair person will tell you that. Sheesh...
98. Re:Spell it out the first time by twocows · 2014-01-21 01:33 · Score: 1
  
  SIX digits? Give it up, grandpa!
99. Re:Spell it out the first time by RoboJ1M · 2014-01-21 01:46 · Score: 1
  
  Here's some more useful information from the TFA that I never knew and is interesting:
  "What it means in ‘layman’s’ term is that if I am distributing software which has code from various developers I don’t really have any right to defend the project in case of any conflict. The code authors own the copyright thus only he/she can engage. What [Contributor License Agreements] do is grant me, the distributor, rights of that code so I can defend it without having each code writer to intervene. It becomes easier if a projects has hundreds of contributors. So in case of FSF or Apache the primary goal is ‘defense’ of the project."
  So I guess this is necessary otherwise anyone could just take the name, logo and source code and make "My New Ubuntu 20.54" and there is nothing Canonical could do about it without getting written permission from every single developer with at least one line of code in the Ubuntu and upstream source base.
100. Re:Spell it out the first time by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-21 02:22 · Score: 0
  
  Thank you for that! Google was absolutely no help whatever trying to find out what a CLA was. Conjugated linoleic acids was the first hit, followed by something having to do with cars... "linux CLA" returned "certified Linux Administrator".
  sfcrazy and samzepus should apologize to the slashdot community for their laziness; there is no excuse for this. I should NOT have to google to find out what an acronym, especially an obcure acronym that has more than one meaning in IT.
101. Re:Spell it out the first time by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-21 02:36 · Score: 0
  
  Yea, if you google CLA you dont remotely get what it means in 5 seconds
  Or, you could click on a link in TFS and get it in, like, 1 second, like I did.
102. Re:Spell it out the first time by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-21 02:41 · Score: 0
  
  GP can mod GGP up because he commented as AC. ... just like I modded you down.
103. Re:Spell it out the first time by Chemisor · 2014-01-21 03:04 · Score: 1
  
  > the TLA namespace is so horribly cluttered now that CLA could mean
  Gee, now we have two abbreviations that should have been spelled out...
104. Re:Spell it out the first time by fractoid · 2014-01-21 03:06 · Score: 1
  
  Zing! :)
  
  --
  Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
105. Re:Spell it out the first time by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-21 03:09 · Score: 0
  
  What? CLA is not a trans-fat in the sense you are thinking. It is healthy and naturally found in milk and beef I believe.
106. Re:Spell it out the first time by x_t0ken_407 · 2014-01-21 03:15 · Score: 1
  
  Agreed, had to check out wikipedia for answers...not that that's unusual even when I have a decent understanding of something.
107. Re:Spell it out the first time by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-21 03:35 · Score: 0
  
  It was good until the page-widener guy came around. Not that he did anything, he was just the canary in the coal mine.
  However, intelligent conversations were had and there were still a few knowlegeable people -even up until 2005.
  9 years later, most of the conversations are shit, and everyone with half a brain (sans me) has left for greener pastures.
  So yeah, it WAS bad in 2002 -but it's far WORSE now.
108. Re:Spell it out the first time by TangoMargarine · 2014-01-21 04:00 · Score: 1
  
  It doesn't help that it's not even on the Acronym Finder list. AT ALL.
  
  --
  Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
109. Re:Spell it out the first time by TangoMargarine · 2014-01-21 04:04 · Score: 1
  
  Good writing? On Slashdot articles?! It's like you think we have editors here!
  
  --
  Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
110. Re:Spell it out the first time by TangoMargarine · 2014-01-21 04:07 · Score: 1
  
  As long as you don't read the comments sections. That's a sure recipe for bleeding from the eyes. (Yahoo or Youtube)
  
  --
  Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
111. Re:Spell it out the first time by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-21 04:54 · Score: 0
  
  > Because they hope your interest will fuel the very slightest bit of initiative, like the ~5 seconds it takes to Google it?
  Maybe spelling out what it means would tell me whether it's worth Googling?
  As it is, I only found it interesting enough to check the comments to see if anyone else was as annoyed by the omission.
112. Re:Spell it out the first time by Nimey · 2014-01-21 05:05 · Score: 1
  
  Gah. Yahoo's news site is so unusable (for me, at least) that I quit reading it after the most recent redesign; endless scrolling is bad design. Prior to this I'd been using their service for... fourteen years?, starting with Lynx on a Linux console over dial-up.
  
  --
  Hail Eris, full of mischief...
  
  E pluribus sanguinem
113. Re:Spell it out the first time by Nimey · 2014-01-21 05:06 · Score: 1
  
  Does Usenet even still exist for non-piratical uses? I subscribe to a half-dozen groups that used to get decent traffic, but for the past couple years all but one has been dead save for spam, and the remaining one gets maybe a dozen articles a week.
  
  --
  Hail Eris, full of mischief...
  
  E pluribus sanguinem
114. Re:Spell it out the first time by Nimey · 2014-01-21 05:09 · Score: 1
  
  Yup. I've been here since sometime in '98 and even then people would gripe about the quality of the editing... but as another poster observed, back then they were unpaid amateurs and this was just Taco's blog.
  
  --
  Hail Eris, full of mischief...
  
  E pluribus sanguinem
115. Re:Spell it out the first time by cornjones · 2014-01-21 05:44 · Score: 1
  
  The place has changed but the cornplaints have stayed the sarne.
  Fewer beowulf cluster jokes though. And I haven't noticed a cowboy Neal poll option in a long time.... memories...
116. Re:Spell it out the first time by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-21 06:04 · Score: 0
  
  TLA namespace?
117. Re:Spell it out the first time by Somebody+Is+Using+My · 2014-01-21 06:37 · Score: 1
  
  Yes. The volume on many groups is fairly low but not non-existent; there are a number of die-hards still lurking about. Of course, it becomes ever-harder to justify the habit if nobody posts so I recommend that if you /do/ still frequent Usenet, then make it a point to post as often as you can. Other lurkers will be glad of the traffic and with some effort you can resuscitate your favorite groups.
  Usenet biggest problem these days isn't spam, binaries or even the lack of easy access; it is that people believe it is dead and gone.
118. Re:Spell it out the first time by exomondo · 2014-01-21 10:07 · Score: 1
  
  Yes you are correct, the concern with Canonical's CLA is that while they ship GPL software the CLA gives Canonical permission to relicense and distribute your contributions under a proprietary license. The question is why would they need that?
119. Re:Spell it out the first time by knarf · 2014-01-21 10:21 · Score: 1
  
  Hear, hear... I only subscribed to this site when it became hard to contribute anonymously. Were it not for that I'd be gladly hiding behind the AC banner still.
  
  --
  --frank[at]unternet.org
120. Re:Spell it out the first time by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-21 12:59 · Score: 0
  
  I prefer "Command Line Arguments." Or maybe "Cubit-Lot-Annum" would be a suitable alternative unit system in physics...
  Of course, "Cheese, Lettuce, Avocado." works too. mmmmmmmm :-9
121. Re:Spell it out the first time by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-22 04:49 · Score: 0
  
  score
122. Re:Spell it out the first time by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-22 05:58 · Score: 0
  
  R+N =/= M! As you didn't replace two of the m's in the second sentence (but did replace one), I'm going to accuse you of steganography. Suspicious!
  Also, the comments from a decade ago were decidedly different. They were mostly "Slashdot is dying, Netcraft confirms it!". Similar message maybe, but definitely not the same corn plant.
123. Re:Spell it out the first time by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-22 22:19 · Score: 0
  
  Condom, Latex, Ansell
CLA? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 11:35 · Score: 2, Funny

Canadian Lacrosse Association
Canadian Library Association
Caprivi Liberation Army
Carry Look-Ahead Adder
Causal layered analysis
Certified Legal Assistant
Cigarette Lighter Adapter
Civil Liberties Association
Communist League of America
Conjugated linoleic acid
Contributor License Agreement
Cuban Liberator Army
1. Re:CLA? by TWX · 2014-01-20 11:52 · Score: 1
  
  C*nt Lickers Anonymous?
  
  (censored to hopefully avoid tripping various workplace filters)
  
  --
  Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
2. Re:CLA? by Rob+the+Bold · 2014-01-20 12:00 · Score: 1
  
  Cleaning, Lubrication & Adjustment? Canadian Lacrosse Association? Carry Look-Ahead Adder? Certified Legal Assistant? Cigarette Lighter Adapter? College of Liberal Arts? Communist League of America? Cuban Liberator Army?
  Somebody help me out here
  Number one Google result -- actually most of the first page's sorth -- is "Conjugated Linoleic Acid". Some kind of bodybuilding supplement also sold as an anti-cancer agent.
  Wikipedia says the health claims are bunk, so Linus is probably right to oppose it.
  
  --
  I am not a crackpot.
3. Re:CLA? by ifiwereasculptor · 2014-01-20 12:19 · Score: 1
  
  Who among us would want to remain anonymous? Especially on /.?
  Full disclosure: we all know odds are I'm not one of us.
4. Re:CLA? by maxwell+demon · 2014-01-20 12:45 · Score: 1
  
  Canonical's Linux Attitude?
  
  --
  The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
CLA? by Attila+the+Bun · 2014-01-20 11:35 · Score: -1, Redundant

Cleaning, Lubrication & Adjustment? Canadian Lacrosse Association? Carry Look-Ahead Adder? Certified Legal Assistant? Cigarette Lighter Adapter? College of Liberal Arts? Communist League of America? Cuban Liberator Army?
Somebody help me out here
moms; there's no chance our dna code is broken by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 11:36 · Score: -1

the murderous neogod crown royals are experiMENTAL mutants serving the WMD on credit band of 85?
WTF... by bkgoodman · 2014-01-20 11:39 · Score: -1

So what's a CLA. Why is there a "controversy" around it. Why does everyone hate Cononical.
As a techy and Linux geek - I think if I have to do research to understand a Slashdot article, it's either bad, or I've been reading Slashdot for too long.
1. Re:WTF... by bob_super · 2014-01-20 11:43 · Score: 1
  
  Next thing you know, they'll actually _make_ you RTFA...
2. Re:WTF... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 11:48 · Score: -1
  
  Well maybe you're just not that much of a "Linux geek" as you think you are -- using ubuntu doesn't automatically make you one.
  A stronger indicator, however, is that you specifically call yourself a Linux geek. Your shell scripts probably all start with '!#/bin/bash', if you ever wrote one, and i bet you consider wayland and systemd the "way to go".
  
  IOW, you're cancer to the unix world
3. Re:WTF... by jedidiah · 2014-01-20 12:03 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Lack of trust.
  This is what this is all about. Many people view Canonical as untrustwory for one reason or another. I could cite a whole litany. However, that's not the point.
  Many people find reason to be suspicious of Canonical in a way that isn't comparable to anything regarding the FSF or Apache. It's not a remotely comparable situation.
  As a general rule, CLAs originating from any corporation with the standard "fuck everyone else" style charter should be met with skepticism. They're not your friends. They probably aren't even your ally.
  
  --
  A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
4. Re:WTF... by djmurdoch · 2014-01-20 12:10 · Score: 0
  
  Canonical vs the FSF is a matter of degree, it's not incomparable.
  If the FSF didn't require copyright assignment, then most GNU stuff would still be GPL2 licensed, and that would make my life easier. Moglen says they need the copyright assignment in order to defend the copyright, but really it has mainly been used as a club to try to force people to switch to GPL3. It's about power, not about freedom.
5. Re:WTF... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 12:13 · Score: 0
  
  Your shell scripts probably all start with '!#/bin/bash'
  My shell scripts start with #!/bin/bash
  And they do so because being POSIXly correct is overrated, you insensitive clod!
6. Re:WTF... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 12:16 · Score: 0
  
  The point of the summary is to provide enough information to let us decide whether we're interested enough in the subject to RTFA. When the summary is too vague people will rightfully complain, and if the response to the complaints is "RTFA" then it's pretty safe to assume that the article is clickbait.
  In other words, you're not helping.
7. Re:WTF... by jrumney · 2014-01-20 16:01 · Score: 2
  
  then most GNU stuff would still be GPL2 licensed, and that would make my life easier.
  ...your life as a patent troll? Because I'm having trouble thinking of anything else that is made easier by the GPLv2 that cannot be done under GPLv3.
8. Re:WTF... by djmurdoch · 2014-01-20 23:55 · Score: 1
  
  GPL2 code is not GPL3 compatible. That's inconvenient. If a copyright holder of something that is GPL2 licensed doesn't agree to relicense it, then you can't use any GPL3 code in it. That's a GPL3 rule, not a GPL2 rule.
9. Re:WTF... by jrumney · 2014-01-21 00:18 · Score: 1
  
  This is precisely why the "or later version" clause is there. Any incompatibility is a problem of the software that was published under a modified GPL without this clause.
10. Re:WTF... by djmurdoch · 2014-01-21 01:34 · Score: 1
  
  There is no "or later version" clause, nor does there need to be. The GPL2 license was perfectly valid at the time.
11. Re:WTF... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-21 01:53 · Score: 0
  
  then most GNU stuff would still be GPL2 licensed, and that would make my life easier.
  ...your life as a patent troll? Because I'm having trouble thinking of anything else that is made easier by the GPLv2 that cannot be done under GPLv3.
  Shipping an embedded device without a public accessible firmware update mechanism?
12. Re:WTF... by david_thornley · 2014-01-21 10:49 · Score: 1
  
  The "or later version" clause is in the FSF's recommendations on how to use the GPL. Lots of software has it. The GPLv2 license is still perfectly valid, but much software is available either under it or the GPLv3, also a perfectly valid license.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
13. Re:WTF... by djmurdoch · 2014-01-21 21:43 · Score: 1
  
  But coming back to the beginning of the thread: Even though the GPL2 is perfectly valid, the FSF has declared in GPL3 that it is not a compatible license. Through their required copyright transfer, they are able to change the license on their projects from GPL2 to GPL3, thereby putting pressure on other GPL2 projects to relicense as well. That's not promoting freedom, that's promoting control.
CLA by ZackSchil · 2014-01-20 11:40 · Score: 5, Funny

Yes of course, the CLA. I have long hated CLAs. CLAs are a problem and someone should do something about the CLAs.
1. Re:CLA by idontgno · 2014-01-20 11:48 · Score: 1
  
  CLA, CLA, CLA, CLAH.
  CLA, CLA.
  CLA CLA CLA.
  After a while, if you say "CLA" enough, it begins to sound like it's not even really a word.
  Oh, wait, it really isn't a word. Never mind.
  
  --
  Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
2. Re:CLA by aix+tom · 2014-01-20 11:52 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  CLAatu barada nikto.
  'nuff said.
3. Re:CLA by gman003 · 2014-01-20 12:05 · Score: 2
  
  CLAs? I'm still angry about TLAs!
4. Re:CLA by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · 2014-01-20 13:30 · Score: 0
  
  I can't beleive there are so many people on here that didn't immediatly know what a CLA was in this context. Its not the olden days. KIds and their lack of intimate knowledge on the state of the Linux world.
  SIG_CHILD, Git off my systemd, before I Go upstart your head.
  
  --
  Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
5. Re:CLA by Megahard · 2014-01-20 18:03 · Score: 1
  
  No, not CLA! CLA!
  
  --
  I eat only the real part of complex carbohydrates.
CLA? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 11:43 · Score: -1

Clean Lubed Ass?
I disagree... I love CLA if it's female!
Co-operation and Trust by bug1 · 2014-01-20 11:47 · Score: 3, Insightful

Free and Open source software are about working together to write software, its unquestionably good.
There are tens of billions of dollars worth of Libre code out there, with thousands of unpunished violators, and only 2 or 3 people in the world defending it.
And this "community" persistently rallies against working tegether Legally with CLA, i just dont understand, is it purely a trust thing ?
(And if you want to help defend Free Software, consider donating to the Software Freedom Conservency)
1. Re:Co-operation and Trust by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 12:05 · Score: -1
  
  (And if you want to help defend Free Software, consider donating to the Software Freedom Conservency)
  Do they also defend Stallman's freedom to conserve bathwater?
2. Re:Co-operation and Trust by exomondo · 2014-01-20 12:05 · Score: 0
  
  I think it's more to do with adding additional layers of legal crap to free software making contributions to and use of such products overly convoluted. That said I do agree with you that to keep it free the community needs to be united and come to terms with the reality of the society they exist in: it would be nice if everybody worked together and nobody ever acted purely in self-interest but that's not going to happen.
  Interesting that on a website that claims to be 'news for nerds' you need to scroll almost to the bottom of the comments to find something that isn't a "I don't know what CLA is, is it (any number of irrelevant or crude possible expansions of the acronym)?", that's pretty pathetic.
3. Re:Co-operation and Trust by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 12:24 · Score: 0
  
  Wow, you're so inexperienced that you don't know there's multiple common meanings to CLA in the software world? How about getting some experience kid before lashing out with your hateful attacks. Just because you're so clueless that you know one and only one meaning for the world doesn't mean the rest of the world is as limited as you.
  It would have helped if the summary explained what type of CLA the article was about instead of leaving us having to guess. Instead, /. yet once again makes the comments to the story completely and utterly useless by forcing most of the posts to be questions about the misleading and incomplete summary.
4. Re:Co-operation and Trust by exomondo · 2014-01-20 12:33 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  First sentence in the linked post "Contributor License Agreements ("CLAs") are a mechanism for an upstream software developer to insist that contributors grant the upstream developer some additional set of rights." Contrary to your assumption I in fact did not know what CLA stood for in this context, so simply clicked the link to find out.
  Yes they could have put that in the summary but sadly had they done that it seems there would have been next to no comments here. I'm sorry if you found some part - feel free to point it out - of the post you found "hateful".
5. Re:Co-operation and Trust by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 12:38 · Score: -1
  
  oh fuck off retard. people like you who dont have 2 braincells to rub together to find out what the acronym means are exactly why this website has gone to shit. more interested in bitching and complaining than constructively discussing the topic because god forbid every bit of information isnt handed to you on a platter and you might actually have to *use* that one braincell for cognitive reasoning.
6. Re:Co-operation and Trust by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 16:27 · Score: 0
  
  it's the likely violators that want you to usually sign the CLA, so that they're not violators...
7. Re:Co-operation and Trust by OhANameWhatName · 2014-01-20 16:45 · Score: 1
  
  There are tens of billions of dollars worth of Libre code out there
  It's only worth money if somebody is capitalizing it. Assigning any dollar value to 'Libre code' is dissonant. It's free, ergo .. it's not worth any amount of dollars.
  
  That doesn't mean it doesn't have value. It just means that the value isn't a dollar value.
8. Re:Co-operation and Trust by bug1 · 2014-01-20 18:11 · Score: 1
  
  It's only worth money if somebody is capitalizing it.
  Corporations do capitalise on Libre code.
  You obviously took the red pill, come back when your ready.
9. Re:Co-operation and Trust by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 23:21 · Score: 0
  
  You obviously took the red pill, come back when your ready.
  You used a full stop there, but your sentence isn't complete. What of mine is ready, and for what purpose?
  Furthermore it was the blue pill in The Matrix that would have sent Neo back into wonderland. He didn't take it.
10. Re:Co-operation and Trust by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-21 00:00 · Score: 1
  
  A CLA effectively says "Here's my hard work, and here are all my rights to ever make money from it. Off you go."
  Sure, an FSF CLA might be innocuous enough; you're deliberately giving the rights to make money off it, in return for it becoming defended, and you're pretty sure the FSF isn't going to turn around one day and say, "right, guys, everything is now GPL4 which is a paid per-user license". But they could.
  On the other side of the coin is the Asterisk CLA. Asterisk is published by a commercial organization; the FOSS arm is only one side of it. These guys are taking contributor code and selling it, without paying the contributors, and the CLA gives them the right to do so. If you're fine with that, go ahead, but don't think that because the FSF CLA is fine then so is the Asterisk CLA.
  You can't just make a judgement on CLAs in general, it's down to the specific beneficiary of the CLA and what their stated purpose & intents are, and how much you believe those stated intents match their real agenda.
  As for rallying against working legally together, this is a strawman at best, disingenuous FUD at worst. There is no legal requirement for a CLA to be in place at all. It is perfectly legally fine to have multiple contributors to a project. It just makes it harder to punish copyright violators after the fact if you have to gather fifty plaintiffs in one place (although if it got as far as 10,000 authors, suddenly you have a class action ...)
11. Re:Co-operation and Trust by Bill_the_Engineer · 2014-01-21 01:38 · Score: 1
  
  And this "community" persistently rallies against working tegether Legally with CLA, i just dont understand, is it purely a trust thing ?
  Not purely a trust thing but pretty close. The problem mentioned in the article is that Canonical's CLA is asymmetric. The author pointed out that their CLA allows Canonical to republish the work originally intended as GPLv3 using a proprietary license. It's not a case of "working together" as much as a case "we like to benefit more from the code than you". Using the author's theory, your submissions to Canonical could be used upstream to make a proprietary version of the software with features not available in the GPL version.
  I had a debate with another commenter earlier this month on this subject. He had assumed that GPL software was completely free from risk of proprietary extensions. This CLA is yet another example of how this (in theory) could be done, the other being the copyright holder publishing on a dual license and the GPL version always lags behind or has less features than the community (GPL) version.
  
  --
  These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
12. Re:Co-operation and Trust by bug1 · 2014-01-21 02:06 · Score: 1
  
  I think what you call wonderland was the "normal" world even though it was not real.
  Here in the normal world its common for people to put there dollar values on things (subjectively), even if that value is not real (objective).
13. Re:Co-operation and Trust by OhANameWhatName · 2014-01-21 10:59 · Score: 1
  
  Here in the normal world its common for people to put there dollar values on things (subjectively), even if that value is not real
  "It's common therefore it's right, even if it's not real" .. I like my red pill. It encourages critical thinking.
  
  Ignoring reality in preference of a state of cognative dissonance is the acceptance of delusion. You're deluded, good luck with that.
14. Re:Co-operation and Trust by bug1 · 2014-01-21 11:16 · Score: 1
  
  Ignoring reality in preference of a state of cognative dissonance is the acceptance of delusion. You're deluded, good luck with that.
  Thanks, ignorance is bliss.
  Good luck with changing the whole world jsut so they agree with you.
15. Re:Co-operation and Trust by OhANameWhatName · 2014-01-22 12:08 · Score: 1
  
  Good luck with changing the whole world jsut so they agree with reality.
  FTFY.
  
  And thankyou for the good wishes, it's my most fervent hope is that objective reality becomes the pervasive mindset of all of human kind. As you've pointed out, it's completely unrealistic to expect people to change and the easiest route would be to accept the delusion of general consensus as unchangeable. Unfortunately, I'm an idealist.
What is a CLA? How would the kernel's tail be sho by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 11:48 · Score: 0

What is a CLA? How would the kernel's tail be shorter with a CLA when it is driving by?
Contributions NOT wanted by mfwitten · 2014-01-20 11:50 · Score: 1

The purpose of CLAs is to maintain the hegemony for the ruling clique; the very point of a CLA is to provide the entrenched bureaucrats with a publicly acceptable reason for shutting the door on those pesky newcomers.
1. Re:Contributions NOT wanted by dbc · 2014-01-20 12:13 · Score: 1
  
  Ummmm.... no. It's to provide a chain of provenance for all contributions that is defensible in court. Without that, it is often impractical to defend your code base against a legal attack.
2. Re:Contributions NOT wanted by mfwitten · 2014-01-20 12:44 · Score: 0
  
  As I already said:
  
  publicly acceptable reason for shutting the door on those pesky newcomers.
3. Re:Contributions NOT wanted by dbc · 2014-01-20 15:01 · Score: 1
  
  OK, so I guess you are a slow reader. The door is not being shut on you. Part of being welcomed into the house is not pissing on the carpet, and not skinning and grilling the kids' cat for lunch.
4. Re:Contributions NOT wanted by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 16:28 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  OK, so I guess you are a slow reader. The door is not being shut on you.
  The door to contributing the set of patches I prepared for gcc ~8 years ago now was firmly shut on me when the FSF insisted that they could not accept them without a signature from my employer, who didn't give a shit about free software, despite the fact that the legal situation is quite clear: my employer does not own code that I work on in my own time, with my own equipment, and which is entirely unrelated to their work.
5. Re:Contributions NOT wanted by SEE · 2014-01-20 17:10 · Score: 1
  
  It wouldn't be a "publicly acceptable reason" if it didn't have plausibility at a first glance.
  The question, then, is if any of the reasons given actually have any merit, as opposed to mere plausibility. Which would require someone to come up with an example of when a CLA actually saved a project, or a lack of a CLA actually killed a project.
6. Re:Contributions NOT wanted by dbc · 2014-01-21 17:56 · Score: 1
  
  Fundamentally good questions. To which I would add: Lack of a CLA caused a project to be unable to update to a better license. Lack of a CLA caused a project to be lost to the public domain. Lack of a CLA caused an open source project to be captured by corporate interests.
7. Re:Contributions NOT wanted by dbc · 2014-01-21 17:59 · Score: 1
  
  OK, so I see three solutions to your problem:
  1. The FSF attorneys, who arguably have more expereince than anyone else on the planet with how copyright law effects open source software, decide that in your case pretending that the effects of the law are actually different from what they believe them to be is a good idea.
  2. Your employer stops being a dick.
  3. You find an employer that is not a dick.
LGPL, MIT, BSD, etc by EmperorOfCanada · 2014-01-20 11:50 · Score: -1, Troll

The only licences I like are LGPL, MIT, BSD, etc. So basically licenses that don't restrict me in any significant way. I don't like GPL and certainly wouldn't have anything to do with these CLAs.

What these bozos seem to forget is that while their software is free and they might fell all righteous in providing it, I don't have to either use it or contribute to their project. There are zillions of options, and zillions of projects that aren't trying to screw me if I contribute; I wonder which one that most people will end up choosing?
1. Re:LGPL, MIT, BSD, etc by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 12:15 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, the GPL doesn't restrict _you_, the developer, in any significant way.
  It's 2014 and people are still spreading FUD about this. For god's sake.
2. Re:LGPL, MIT, BSD, etc by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 12:44 · Score: 0
  
  I've written a piece of software, foo, that I'd like to open source. I'd like to let anyone customize it and/or use it in any way they want, whether commercially or not. I don't care if they contribute or tell me their changes, although that would be appreciated. All I care is that, if they make changes to the software, they no longer call it foo.* So basically I need to trademark foo.
  This is where I'm stuck. I'd like the community to help me out with three things:
  1. Mirror my software in multiple countries so that it can't be appropriated by the laws of a single nation gone rogue.
  2. Help me out with the trademark.
  3. A one or two pargraph sample text that basically says "this is open source, use it as you like, but if you change it in any way you can't market as foo anymore."
  * Because if their undeclared changes introduce bugs it can damage foo's reputation and people may hold me responsible for bugs that I have no control over.
Acronyms by marcadon · 2014-01-20 11:50 · Score: 0

Acronyms are the most annoying things ever - it's easier and quicker the read the 'real' name for something rather than have to work it out. Big organisations love them though - I can't decide if it is meant to help those involved in it or put off people who aren't
Linus may be an asshole... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 11:55 · Score: 3, Insightful

But he's a wise asshole. Not cow-towing to the fail that is GPL 3 (kernel, git and subsurface.) Not climbing on the CLA bandwagon...
One day Linus will be gone and Linux will probably fall into the hands of license-mongering zealots. I'm glad I probably won't be around to suffer that.
1. Re:Linus may be an asshole... by zippthorne · 2014-01-20 12:18 · Score: 2
  
  But.. how does linus handle contributions to the kernel? Are they stuck forever at GPLv2 because that's what all they myriad patches were submitted under and it would be prohibitive to track down everyone who ever contributed in order to get permission to change should it turn out GPLv2 has some kind of heretofore undiscovered flaw, or should a much better license come along that every other project is using except the kernel?
  Surely at some point you have to put trust in someone to do the right thing, and kernel contributors should be assigning their copy rights to whatever organization or individual controls the kernel, or to an organization of like-minded licensing opinions that can negotiate with the kernel team so that the kernel organization can re-negotiate licenses as-needed without exponential effort in tracking down individual contributors.
  
  --
  Can you be Even More Awesome?!
2. Re:Linus may be an asshole... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 12:29 · Score: 0
  
  They handle it with this.
3. Re:Linus may be an asshole... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 12:31 · Score: 0
  
  stuck forever at GPLv2
  You write that almost as if it's a problem.
4. Re:Linus may be an asshole... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 13:20 · Score: 0
  
  wisdom and being a bitchy old fuck are very similar with the exact same results, stagnation
5. Re:Linus may be an asshole... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 18:06 · Score: 0
  
  But he's a wise asshole. Not cow-towing....
  Yeah, who in their right mind tows cows these days, anyway?
6. Re:Linus may be an asshole... by u38cg · 2014-01-21 00:57 · Score: 1
  
  Transitioning to GPL3 would be non-trivial, but legally possible with sufficient agreement of current codebase contributors. A notice period for objections, re-write any code as required, and you're good. I think Groklaw discussed this back when the hoo-hah over GPL3 was in full flight.
  
  --
  [FUCK BETA]
7. Re:Linus may be an asshole... by geminidomino · 2014-01-21 01:33 · Score: 1
  
  Wisdom... results in stagnation? Really?
  'Murica...
8. Re:Linus may be an asshole... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-21 04:05 · Score: 0
  
  > Not cow-towing to the fail that is GPL 3
  What are you talking about? The GPLv3 has been a great success. True, there are about 3 times as many GPLv2 projects (and twice as many LGPLv2 than LGPLv3). But you have to consider that a) a much larger proportion of GPLv2 projects will not be active (i.e., dead GPLv2 projects are unlikely to make a switch), and b) many GPLv2 projects will not want to switch simply because of the effort required (it may not even be possible in some cases, such as with Linux) or apathy to the politics of their licence. As more new projects emerge, the GPLv3 is only likely to take up a larger share of all GPL'ed projects.
  (Source)
LGPL prohibits tivoization by tepples · 2014-01-20 12:10 · Score: 1

http://news.slashdot.org/comme...

The only licences I like are LGPL, MIT, BSD, etc. So basically licenses that don't restrict me in any significant way.
What you say is true of MIT and BSD licenses as well as the GNU All-Permissive License. But LGPL is really just GPL with an exception allowing linking the covered work to a proprietary program in such a manner that the user can replace the covered work with a modified version. This permission is unacceptable on platforms that have a general policy not to execute code that the platform's gatekeeper has not approved or code that has been modified since the platform's gatekeeper has approved it. So you can't really use an LGPL library in an application for an iOS device, major game console, or major handheld game system unless you're the author of the entire library or unless you have a dual license, and the featured article is about opposition to giving the library's maintainer the option of granting such a dual license.
1. Re:LGPL prohibits tivoization by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 12:42 · Score: 0
  
  No, LGPL3 and GPL3 prevent tivoization. LGPL2.1 does not, but I would still prefer when it has a static linking clause. ... WTFPL or the unlicense are pretty close to public domain.
2. Re:LGPL prohibits tivoization by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 16:58 · Score: 0
  
  But LGPL is really just GPL with an exception allowing linking the covered work to a proprietary program in such a manner that the user can replace the covered work with a modified version. This permission is unacceptable on platforms that have a general policy not to execute code that the platform's gatekeeper has not approved or code that has been modified since the platform's gatekeeper has approved it.
  That is wrong. It is nothing to do with executing the code and that is precisely why Tivoization is a "problem" with the GPL v3. You must be able to modify and rebuild the application but there is no requirement to install and execute it on specific hardware.
3. Re:LGPL prohibits tivoization by exomondo · 2014-01-20 17:28 · Score: 1
  
  It is nothing to do with executing the code and that is precisely why Tivoization is a "problem" with the GPL v3.
  Tivoization was specifically addressed in the GPL with v3, it is versions < v3 that don't address tivoization. But yes as you say installation and execution are the key elements added to v3 that prevent tivoization.
4. Re:LGPL prohibits tivoization by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 20:21 · Score: 1
  
  I just want to write code in my spare time, not become a lawyer, the GPL is a huge piece of text and impossible for any normal person to understand (just look at all the arguments on /. about what the GPL do or do not mean).
5. Re:LGPL prohibits tivoization by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 21:16 · Score: 0
  
  And then you go on to prove my point in this very thread... Thanks :-)
  (It reminds me of BETAMAX vs VHS. It is not necesarilly the "better" option that wins, its the simplest and most available for regular users that does. (or the one with best PR, and the vocal GPL proponents arent doing their best when they insult everyone and everything else for not fitting into their political worldview))
  When you choose GPL you instantly pulled a shitload of politcal garbage into your project when all you needed to say was "not to be used for commercial use" and "everyone supplying patches give me the copyright on the patches" (and perhaps a few more lines if you enjoy being anal about it and spell it out)
  - then, at your choice, you can relicense for commercial use at request if you want to.
6. Re:LGPL prohibits tivoization by david_thornley · 2014-01-21 11:03 · Score: 1
  
  If you can't understand the GPL well enough to use it, I don't want your spare-time code.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
As can ANY of the major CLAs... by trims · 2014-01-20 12:28 · Score: 5, Interesting

Take a look at pretty much any major CLA out there.
I'll name three big ones: OpenJDK, FSF's for GNU, and Apache's.
ALL of them either directly assign the copyright of the contribution to the org, and thus, you lose any ability to control it whatsoever, or give the org the ability to relicense it explicitly.
This is intentional, and a GOOD thing, because it increases the flexibility of the project, including making it easier to defend rights in court. Frankly, have a project with multiple copyright assignment is impossible to manage from a legal standpoint, let alone one where you don't even know the real identity of a contribution's author.
The Linux kernel is stuck on the GNU v2 license for exactly this reason, and can never change. That's the fate of any such non-CLA'd Open Source project (other than something using Public Domain or the BSD license).
FYI: the FSF can (and has) relicensed code contributed to GNU projects under a proprietary license. (gcc and part of the toolchain)

--
There are always four sides to every story: your side, their side, the truth, and what really happened.
1. Re:As can ANY of the major CLAs... by ustolemyname · 2014-01-20 12:48 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  The Linux kernel is stuck on the GNU v2 license for exactly this reason, and can never change. That's the fate of any such non-CLA'd Open Source project (other than something using Public Domain or the BSD license).
  Actually no, the Linux kernel is stuck on the GNU GPL v2 because Linus made that decision on purpose. The default GNU license allows for relicencing under any later version, but Linux removed that clause on purpose.
  Here's his rant against GPLv3: https://lkml.org/lkml/2006/9/2...
2. Re:As can ANY of the major CLAs... by Immerman · 2014-01-20 14:56 · Score: 2
  
  Yeah, I wonder just how many people I'd have to buy off at $100 million per head in order to get GPL 13: The final edition, Wherein I own everything, and you can all go suck eggs. Any later GPL versions are fraudulent. So nyeah.
  I rather suspect that even Stallman might yield to such temptation, and if not I'm sure some tragic accident could be arranged. The question is only whether or not it's a cost effective way to get a massive codebase while simultaneously throwing a significant legal workload on every distributed-ownership GPL project that doesn't want to let me take their ongoing work proprietary.
  And obviously rinse and repeat for any other free license with an "upgrade feature".
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
3. Re:As can ANY of the major CLAs... by 0123456 · 2014-01-20 15:19 · Score: 1
  
  Actually no, the Linux kernel is stuck on the GNU GPL v2 because Linus made that decision on purpose. The default GNU license allows for relicencing under any later version, but Linux removed that clause on purpose.
  [citation needed]
  Later in the very email thread you linked to, he said:
  "For example, in the GPLv3 discussions, I've seen more than one person claim that I've used a special magic version of the GPLv2 that doesn't have the "v2 or any later" clause. Again, those people don't have a _clue_ about what they are talking about."
  Certainly the COPYING file at the top level of kernel.org's linux repository appears to include that clause. I didn't look in indvidual kernel tar files.
4. Re:As can ANY of the major CLAs... by jschrod · 2014-01-20 15:30 · Score: 1
  
  You should have looked into the kernel tar files.
  The 2nd paragraph of COPYING reads:
  Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.
  Since it is well known fact that Linux is GPLv2 only, what's your intent in denying that? Trolling?
  
  --
  Joachim
  
  People don't write Manifestos any more -- what's going on in this world? [Frank Zappa]
5. Re:As can ANY of the major CLAs... by ustolemyname · 2014-01-20 15:43 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks, my kernel also says that ;)
  The relevant "or later" clause from GPLv2 is Section 9, for those who are curious.
  The point being, Linus could have allowed later versions of GPL. He explicitly decided to disallow them from the start, and has defended that position repeatedly.
6. Re:As can ANY of the major CLAs... by 0123456 · 2014-01-20 16:33 · Score: 0
  
  Since it is well known fact that Linux is GPLv2 only, what's your intent in denying that?
  Trolling?
  Since your response has nothing to do with the post I was replying to, which stated that Linus had removed the clause from the GPL, what's your intent in posting that? Or are you just unable to comprehend English?
7. Re:As can ANY of the major CLAs... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 19:03 · Score: 0
  
  FYI: the FSF can (and has) relicensed code contributed to GNU projects under a proprietary license. (gcc and part of the toolchain)
  [citation needed] Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, you know...
8. Re:As can ANY of the major CLAs... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 19:42 · Score: 0
  
  He removed that clause because it had been added too late, and so couldn't be legally binding. That's what his point at the bottom is: you can't make the kernel GPLv3 for legal reasons (also possibly idealistic/practical ones).
9. Re:As can ANY of the major CLAs... by fnj · 2014-01-20 19:51 · Score: 1
  
  ... can never change. That's the fate of any such non-CLA'd Open Source project (other than something using Public Domain or the BSD license).
  So in other words, other than a whole awful lot of very valuable projects.
10. Re:As can ANY of the major CLAs... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 20:08 · Score: 0
  
  And who in their right mind puts in their license "and anything organisation decides in the future is right for me" its effectively a blank check. And we have seen countles of good-intentioned organisations getting 0wned due to internal fighting or putting money in the right peoples hands. then what?
11. Re:As can ANY of the major CLAs... by m.alessandrini · 2014-01-20 20:20 · Score: 1
  
  On the other hand, there is MySQL: they made people give away their copyright, and then sold everything for a billion dollar. How much of that money went back to the actual contributors?
12. Re:As can ANY of the major CLAs... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 21:49 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, I wonder just how many people I'd have to buy off at $100 million per head in order to get GPL 13: The final edition, Wherein I own everything, and you can all go suck eggs. Any later GPL versions are fraudulent. So nyeah.
  Since the copyright assignment includes a contract that precludes doing this, I'd say this is badly spent money, because even if you manage that, it will be reversed by court.
  Well, unless you've got enough money left to compromise the courts, too.
13. Re:As can ANY of the major CLAs... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 23:29 · Score: 0
  
  > Frankly, have a project with multiple copyright assignment is impossible to manage from a legal standpoint
  From a legal standpoint, the problem with copyright assignments is that they are not worth the paper they are written on in a lot of countries.
  All those German developers that signed one? Guess what, it will not hold up in a German court because German law says you cannot transfer copyright without fair compensation. So all Germans who contributed could sue GNU for changing the license in a German court and win. I guess GNU could try countersuing in a US court and might win there. Yay! Suddenly GNU software can only be used in the US or what?
14. Re:As can ANY of the major CLAs... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 23:45 · Score: 0
  
  The whole point of TFA is that it's not necessarily a good thing. You can't just point to its pros and say therefore it's good. It has cons too, which you're ignoring. The con in question being, it raises the barrier to entry for contributors. Linus points to the benefits of not having a CLA, and where you say all CLAs do this, Linus says all CLAs are broken.
  Linus is making this comment assuming people already know what a CLA is and why they are useful, not because he doesn't understand the purpose of CLAs.
15. Re:As can ANY of the major CLAs... by Immerman · 2014-01-21 05:02 · Score: 1
  
  >Since the copyright assignment includes a contract that precludes doing this
  I don't think that's actually possible. Scenario:
  Alice assigns her copyright to Bob, which is then licensed under "GPLv2 or any later version"
  I buy out the FSF and get GPL: Suck It World released.
  Neither I nor the FSF was party to the contract between Alice and Bob, so it can't be used to restrict our actions. And since I have a license to their code under the GPLv2 "or any later version" license I am free to upgrade to "Suck It" and take their code proprietary. Granted I don't actually *own* that code, it still belongs to Bob, but I have a perpetual license which lets me do whatever I want with it. And until they port their project to another license I get all future improvements as well.
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
16. Re:As can ANY of the major CLAs... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-21 05:40 · Score: 0
  
  He's replying to me there.
  It opened my eyes to what Linus really is; and for him it's not about freedom. It's about popularity. And sacrificing principles for the sake of industry adoption.
  Oh, and a conflict of interest.
  
  If you don't want a machine that is locked down, just don't buy it. It's
  that simple. But don't try to take the right away from others to buy that
  kind of convenience.
  And yes, Tivo is exactly such a situation. It's damn convenient. I've got
  two Tivo's myself (and yes - I actually paid full price for them. I was
  given one of the original ones, but that's long since scrapped, and even
  that one I paid the subscription fee myself). But you don't have to buy
  them. You can build your own at any time, and it will probably be more
  powerful.
  -- Linus Torvalds, LKML, 2006.
  Source
  Everybody now contributing to the kernel is doing so knowing they are helping companies like TiVo evade the spirit of the GPL. This is called 'Tivoization'.
  Source
  Thanks to Linus Torvalds.
17. Re:As can ANY of the major CLAs... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-21 12:59 · Score: 0
  
  Linus has always been interested in Open Source, not Free Software. He is not "sacrificing principles" at all, he was never interested in those principles, if you assumed he was interested in Free Software just because he used the GPL then you were never paying attention. This has always been his position, it's no secret. Even the FSF knew this but they advocated GNU/Linux rather than GNU/Hurd because they were willing to sacrifice their principles for the sake of industry adoption.
  If you want to lambaste somebody for sacrificing their principles for industry adoption then have a go at Stallman and the FSF, they always knew Linus didn't care about Free Software and instead cared about Open Source but instead of working harder at Hurd they took the easy route with Linux and as a result the system they advocate has a core rooted in Open Source, not Free Software.
For a noted pragmatist, Linus is dead wrong... by trims · 2014-01-20 12:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

Normally, I see Linus being pragmatic about things, but I have no idea why he's against CLAs.
Having a CLA (with some form of copyright assignment or "unlimited" sublicensing) is the ONLY way to run a flexible, long-term Open Source project.
The Linux kernel is the only substantial project that doesn't do this, and, frankly, can only get away with it because it's so critical. Even there, it's a pain, because (to pick a stellar example), Linux will NEVER be able to relicense itself under an improved GNU license. It's stuck FOREVER on the GNU v2 license. Which is hardly a good thing.
CLAs are a consequence of copyright, just like the licenses themselves are. They're necessary to allow a project to update the license, defend the entire codebase in court, keep track of ACTUAL authors, etc. If you don't have this, you have a toy project, one which ultimately will fail to succeed.
If you don't like CLAs, then use the BSD or Public Domain route, because they're the only licenses (or non-license) that avoids all the traps of copyright law. Otherwise, if you want copyleft of any sort, then you have to use a CLA.
Linus is basically complaining that having a driver's license is an obstacle to people just getting on the road and driving whenever they want. Sure, CLAs restrict the "fly by night" patcher. That's a feature not a bug. Sometimes, you do want to set the bar higher than the lowest common denominator. Naturally, some CLAs are worse than others, but the concept as a whole is sound.
-Erik

--
There are always four sides to every story: your side, their side, the truth, and what really happened.
1. Re:For a noted pragmatist, Linus is dead wrong... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 13:08 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  On the contrary, Linux is quite right. Lots of long-term open source projects don't require copyright assignment and I'm not likely to work for any which do. The reason is quite simple: If I'm contributing my time and effort to a project, I don't want the project's code to get relicensed without my concent. If a company, such as Canonical, wants me to contribute then they should be prepared to let me keep copyright of my code so I can be assured it won't get tucked away in a closed source project.
  The Linux kernel not getting relicensed under a newer form of the GPL is a feature, not a bug. Some companies which use Linux now wouldn't if it switched to the GPLv3 because the newer license isn't as friendly (or easy to read) as the old one.
2. Re:For a noted pragmatist, Linus is dead wrong... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 13:21 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Not all projects have copyright assignment. In fact, the majority use "unlimited, non-revokable sublicense" concept. You retain your copyright, but give the project the flexibility to do what it needs to with your code.
  By contributing, you're participating in the project, and ceding a portion of your influence as a cost of being a participant. Imaging if a project required UNANIMOUS consent of any contributor, ever, to make a license change. Or defend against a particular copyright suit, or similar. So, sure, a CLA removes some power from the individual. However, your contribution was hardly useful without the rest of the codebase, so it's unreasonable to require unanimous consensus on everything affecting the codebase.
  No, the non-relicense problem of the kernel is definitely a bug. Just because it currently prevents something you don't like doesn't mean it's a feature. If, at some time, we came up with a better GNU v4 license, the kernel can't switch.
  Because v2 is hardly perfect, and we're locked into it regardless.
3. Re:For a noted pragmatist, Linus is dead wrong... by phantomfive · 2014-01-20 13:37 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Normally, I see Linus being pragmatic about things, but I have no idea why he's against CLAs.
  
  Linus doesn't like them because it's an extra barrier for people who might want to contribute to the code. The more barriers you have to contributors, the fewer will contribute. I can tell you that I fixed some bugs in Android, which I didn't contribute back, because the process was too painful (and that was before I realized there was a CLA; if I'd known that, I wouldn't have even tried).
  
  Of course, there are benefits to CLAs, as you point out, and Eban Moglen points out other benefits. It's a matter of choosing what your priorities are. Linus favors the ease of contribution. He also considers the fact that Linux is stuck forever on GPLv2 to be a feature, not a problem.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
4. Re:For a noted pragmatist, Linus is dead wrong... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 14:13 · Score: 0
  
  I can tell you that I fixed some bugs in Android, which I didn't contribute back, because the process was too painful (and that was before I realized there was a CLA; if I'd known that, I wouldn't have even tried).
  What I don't understand about that is why Google need a CLA for Android, the idea is so they have the rights to defend the software but Google dont defend Android, even with their huge trove of patents they dont defend it. It is often claimed that the Microsoft-asserted patents against Linux are without merit (though people always make this argument having never seen the patents in question) so why does Google still do nothing about that and allow its "partners" to be gouged?
5. Re:For a noted pragmatist, Linus is dead wrong... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 14:27 · Score: 0
  
  Eh, clicking a button on a form (like we have for Google's CLA) does not seem to stem contributions very much.
  I agree that filling out real forms and sending them is a burden.
6. Re:For a noted pragmatist, Linus is dead wrong... by Rich0 · 2014-01-20 15:01 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  The Linux kernel not getting relicensed under a newer form of the GPL is a feature, not a bug.
  Yeah, explain that to me in 10 years when some court rules that contributions under the GPL are illegal to distribute due to some legal deficiency in the license. Suddenly there is no linux kernel, because there is no way to switch to a newer license that does not have that attribute.
  Sure, that might never happen, just as a firmware burned into a ROM might never need upgrading. However, if it does you're up the creek. The whole GPL2+ thing is about having an insurance policy.
7. Re:For a noted pragmatist, Linus is dead wrong... by silas_moeckel · 2014-01-20 15:18 · Score: 0
  
  Is that not the point of clause 14's or any later version. Yes your risking that the FSF does not go bad and publish GPL 9321 everything belongs to your corporate masters edition. The main issue with the CLA's is them allowing dual licencing without your consent it's just a for profit company getting free labor. We already have cases like this Bacula comes to mind.
  
  --
  No sir I dont like it.
8. Re:For a noted pragmatist, Linus is dead wrong... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 15:58 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  Please explain why the Linux kernel being stuck at GNU v2 is a bad thing! Really! I'd like to know, because as a Linux user, and follower and user of a vast amount of FOSS, I don't see what you are seeing as the problem!
9. Re:For a noted pragmatist, Linus is dead wrong... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 16:37 · Score: 0
  
  CLAs are a consequence of copyright, just like the licenses themselves are. They're necessary to allow a project to update the license, defend the entire codebase in court, keep track of ACTUAL authors, etc.
  1. Why do you need to update the license?
  2. Why would you need to defend the *entire* codebase in court? Any instance of unauthorised copying is enough to get a court order preventing further violations, so all you need to take to court with you in order to get a useful result is a single contributor whose contributions to the code are significant enough that the violator couldn't plausibly remove them and/or rewrite them from scratch.
  3. Who cares who the "ACTUAL" authors are? It's actually kind of nice to be able to contribute psuedonymously, especially to projects that may not be legal in all jursidictions (e.g. anything that has encryption tools, or contains potential patent violations like most media players do).
  
  Sure, CLAs restrict the "fly by night" patcher. That's a feature not a bug. Sometimes, you do want to set the bar higher than the lowest common denominator.
  That's what code review is for. Setting the bar at "people who don't have employers who refuse to sign contracts without having a lawyer read them first and who won't spend the money to get a lawyer to read them when it offers them no advantage" is not a productive filter on contributors. Have you ever wondered why HURD is still not off the ground but Linux is on millions of computers worldwide?
10. Re:For a noted pragmatist, Linus is dead wrong... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 16:53 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, explain that to me in 10 years when some court rules that contributions under the GPL are illegal to distribute due to some legal deficiency in the license.
  
  No reasonable court will ever rule such a thing, and that you suggest it means that you have little understanding of how the law actually works. Any legal document, including the GPL, is open to the courts to interpret, and the guideline they will use to interpret it basically "read it in such a way as to give it the closest possible meaning to that which the original signatories wanted when they signed it" (signing it here being 'distributing code with it used as the license'). It is not possible to imagine that anyone distributing such code wants the GPL to not allow that distribution, so clearly any interpretation of it that prevents distribution is an invalid interpretation of their intent, and another interpretation must be sought until one is found that does allow distribution. This is what any reasonable court will do in the either the US or England, or anywhere else with a court system derived from the English system. For the rest of the world, it is not necessary that local courts allow residents of that country to distribute as long as they are free to acquire copies distributed from the US or England (although most would typically follow the interpretation placed on the license by the courts of its country of origin, i.e. the US).
11. Re:For a noted pragmatist, Linus is dead wrong... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 17:07 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  The Linux kernel is the only substantial project that doesn't do this, and, frankly, can only get away with it because it's so critical. Even there, it's a pain, because (to pick a stellar example), Linux will NEVER be able to relicense itself under an improved GNU license. It's stuck FOREVER on the GNU v2 license. Which is hardly a good thing.
  ...Says you. Because Linus says that's precisely one of its beauties.
  
  If you don't like CLAs, then use the BSD or Public Domain route, because they're the only licenses (or non-license) that avoids all the traps of copyright law. Otherwise, if you want copyleft of any sort, then you have to use a CLA.
  ...Not having Linux under a CLA makes it easier to explain why he's sticking to a (good!) choice he did *over 20* years ago. No matter how hard you bitch, Linux will never be licensed under anything but GPLv2. And that's a feature.
12. Re:For a noted pragmatist, Linus is dead wrong... by tapspace · 2014-01-20 17:14 · Score: 1
  
  It's stuck FOREVER on the GNU v2
  And? GPL v2 is, in many ways, the license. Linus is like Steve Jobs. He reminds us that one man can, sometimes, outperform a whole team, uniting an entire army behind him. I digress. What's wrong with being stuck on GPL2? It's an amazing license.
13. Re:For a noted pragmatist, Linus is dead wrong... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 18:50 · Score: 0
  
  It's stuck FOREVER on the GNU v2 license.
  I wonder if this is actually true. Surely, if someone provided a patch for Linux that was under some other license, you'd be able to redistribute the patched version provided you abided by both licenses? In which case, the effective licensing conditions for Linux *can* change, but only to become more restrictive.
  (Or you could wait for the copyrights to expire on the GPL v2 licensed parts, but that's crazy talk.)
14. Re:For a noted pragmatist, Linus is dead wrong... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 20:22 · Score: 1
  
  Imagine that you start a software project and you are the main developer. You spend a significant amount of your own free time developing it over a year or two. You release it under an open source license because you think it will be useful to others and after a while it turns out that it is. Someone comes along and contributes a patch to add a feature. The patch counts for less than 1% of the code and is nigh-trivial.
  Without a CLA, accepting that patch locks your entire project into the license under which the patch was contributed. That is not software freedom but tyranny. The other options are to implement the functionality of the patch yourself based on the idea, or reject it.
  What good does it do for the submitter to keep the copyright of the patch? The patch itself can only be applied to the project. What are you going to do? Relicense it under a proprietary license and sell the patch on its own? If that's your intention, why bother to contribute it in the first place?
  The way I see it, the submitter receives far more from the project than he contributes. The devs have given you free software and the open-source releases cannot be rescinded. If they at a later time wish to license the project under a proprietary license (e.g. to let some company use the software in a product) then let them. They have earned it. The open-source version will live on, either in continued development by the devs (dual-licensing is common, it's not one or the other) or as a fork of the last open-source version.
  Of course, if you don't trust the developers and think that their open-source project is just a devious attempt to create a commercial product then you should fork the project instead of contributing to it.
  The irony is that your mentality (I OWN THIS CODE) is in opposition to the core ideas of open source. Stop trying to impose arbitrary limitations on other people
15. Re:For a noted pragmatist, Linus is dead wrong... by hweimer · 2014-01-20 20:29 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Yeah, explain that to me in 10 years when some court rules that contributions under the GPL are illegal to distribute due to some legal deficiency in the license.
  Actually, it is much more likely that a CLA will be found to be unenforcable than the text of a well-established software license. In fact, CLAs requiring copyright assignment are probably void in large parts of the world, meaning you are back to square one.
  
  --
  OS Reviews: Free and Open Source Software
16. Re:For a noted pragmatist, Linus is dead wrong... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 20:30 · Score: 0
  
  How a license that changes on someone elses whim in the future can be a good thing is beyond me. the "stuck FOREVER" comment makes me think of those people that can only live if they have the newest iphone, newets version of _any_ hard/software, and regards "new" the most important (and only worthy) quality.
17. Re:For a noted pragmatist, Linus is dead wrong... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 23:38 · Score: 0
  
  Exactly a lot CLAs are worth nothing legally and nobody gives a damn, even though that makes the projects legally far more questionable and at risk that the Linux kernel.
18. Re:For a noted pragmatist, Linus is dead wrong... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 23:45 · Score: 0
  
  > The patch counts for less than 1% of the code and is nigh-trivial.
  If less than 1% of your code is from others and you see it staying like this for a longer time, you aren't really running a community project.
  Which is kind of what others and Linus are saying CLAs aren't suitable for community projects. Which isn't the same as OpenSource in general.
19. Re:For a noted pragmatist, Linus is dead wrong... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 23:47 · Score: 0
  
  Wow, bullshit.
  Copyleft is the most butthurt of all creations. Hater's got jelly because someone took their work and made something better and didn't give back source code. Boo fucking hoo. Plenty of other people are creating much better software than anything copyleft, without building on copyleft, and the same jelly haters are whining about how they shouldn't do that because "it's immoral", but it has more to do with them being jelly that they can't make something as good. Wah, wah, wah.
  I don't put copyright or copyleft on my things because it is an insult to people's ability to think and act rationally without some lawyer butthole telling them what they can and can't do with their own software. Once you get a piece of software on a device you control, rational sense tells you it is yours to do with what you will. The anti-privacy butt-munches want us all to live in a world where we have to follow dumbass rules set out by boring farts who never do anything productive or useful in this world. They want a pan-opticon society where our every action can be sanctioned and judged by the least valuable losers that make up our human population. So accepting copyright or copyleft is tacit to acceptance of a pan-opticon police state, for the relevance of either is completely without merit without the surveillance apparatus demanded by bootlickers to enforce it.
  To accept copyleft is denial of a right to act privately, anonymously and without judgement. In particular the right to keep secret the method of our own creativity. It is akin to demanding a film maker to release their dailies to the world, or a painter to reveal his unfinished works. There are artists who freely choose to exhibit their method, out of compassion or cooperation to fellow artists, or to bask in the publicity, but it is an affront to rational expressionism to demand it of anybody.
  The latest moves in the copyleft lynchmob is to try and confiscate the privacy and sanctity from people using copyleft code privately to provide public computing services. Freedom it is not. They demand that we give up our freedom and privacy for their convenience, and often simply out of jealousy and spite.
20. Re:For a noted pragmatist, Linus is dead wrong... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-21 00:09 · Score: 0
  
  If your only validation of contributions is the fact that the guy signed a CLA, you have bigger problems than "fly-by-night patchers". CLA is a legal issue not a technical issue, and using it as a technical solution to bad checkins is a ridiculous idea. Using that technical solution as an argument in favour of CLAs is retarded. If you want to restrict who can contribute, do it according to meritocratic principles, not arbitrary roadblocks. I can't believe anyone would be stupid enough to think that was a "feature" of CLAs, seriously.
21. Re:For a noted pragmatist, Linus is dead wrong... by Rich0 · 2014-01-21 00:49 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, it is much more likely that a CLA will be found to be unenforcable than the text of a well-established software license. In fact, CLAs requiring copyright assignment are probably void in large parts of the world, meaning you are back to square one.
  Well, no country enforces IP like the US does anyway, so it really matters most whether they're enforceable in the US. When was the last time you heard of Germany handing down a billion-dollar judgment over a couple of defines?
  The FSFe's FLA purports to solve this very problem. It also is designed to revert all rights to the original author if the licensee attempts to relicense the code under a proprietary license. I'm certainly not a German lawyer but it seems reasonably likely to be accepted by countries that uphold author's rights because not only does the copyright remain with the author, but the agreement actually is designed to protect their philosophical choice in licensing their code under a free software license.
22. Re:For a noted pragmatist, Linus is dead wrong... by Rich0 · 2014-01-21 00:52 · Score: 1
  
  Is that not the point of clause 14's or any later version. Yes your risking that the FSF does not go bad and publish GPL 9321 everything belongs to your corporate masters edition. The main issue with the CLA's is them allowing dual licencing without your consent it's just a for profit company getting free labor. We already have cases like this Bacula comes to mind.
  Don't get me wrong - I'm no fan of Canonical's CLA. Of the CLAs I've seen the FSFe's FLA seems like the best I've seen so far. I just think that GPL n+ is a better choice than GPL n because the benefits outweigh the risks. I recognize that there are risks either way - trusting the FSF vs trusting the legal system.
  Here's another perspective - what law designed to regulate corporations wasn't ever ultimately twisted via loopholes into basically accomplishing the opposite of what it intended. That is, those it intended to regulate ended up being free to violate the intent of the law, and the law ended up instead limiting the competition by raising barriers to entry?
23. Re:For a noted pragmatist, Linus is dead wrong... by Rich0 · 2014-01-21 00:59 · Score: 1
  
  I'm just saying that there is a finite risk of a court doing exactly what you say that it won't do, just as there is a risk that the FSF will screw everybody over with GPLv5 that says all your code belongs to us.
  The problem with depending on a non-upgradable license is that it can't evolve. The legal system evolves. Nobody changed any laws or the constitution and yet bans on gay marriage were once perfectly legal and most likely will not be in the US. There isn't a securities or tax law out there which isn't wantonly violated every day by companies with enough lawyers to weasel their way around it.
  I think that GPLv2 being de-fanged isn't terribly likely. However, I still think it is unwise to hang all your hopes around any single legal document that is immutable. If the GPLv2's equivalent of the interstate commerce clause is ever discovered, there goes Linux...
24. Re:For a noted pragmatist, Linus is dead wrong... by TangoMargarine · 2014-01-21 04:34 · Score: 1
  
  So accepting copyright or copyleft is tacit to acceptance of a pan-opticon police state
  It sounds like you don't understand some of the reasoning behind the GPL. It was designed to work within the existing system because we can't just hand-wave it away. From the rest of your post, it sounds like you might be okay with a company taking your public domain code, closing the source, selling it, and then suing you for infringement, though. You don't really explain what your preferred solution is.
  
  To accept copyleft is denial of a right to act privately, anonymously and without judgement.
  So license it as closed-source. Why don't you want to do that? You're spending all this effort arguing against copyleft...its very existence irritates you? Then just don't use it.
  What the hell does "jelly hater" mean?
  
  --
  Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
25. Re:For a noted pragmatist, Linus is dead wrong... by david_thornley · 2014-01-21 11:00 · Score: 1
  
  I'll give you one problem with Linux being stuck on GPLv2.
  Every so often, I'll torrent a Linux distro. It's well established (at least in the US) that, by doing that, I'm distributing it. Therefore, if this isn't a source torrent, I'm distributing GPLv2 binaries without sources (and without a written offer to get source, either from me or from upstream), and hence am a copyright violator. This doesn't actually bother me, since I'm acting in accordance with the intention of the copyright holders, but it is illegal.
  That particular problem was dealt with in GPLv3, so you can completely legally torrent something GPLv3ed as long as the source is available.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Re:Evolution by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 13:09 · Score: 0

Slashdot will may very well go bankrupt if they don't buy up the other tech sites...
WTF is CLA you nimrods?! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 13:14 · Score: 0

Holy sheet what the hell you fucking retards. Is this a news source or just random bullshit posted by random idiots? (ie. digg, reddit, etc)
Samzenpus by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 13:20 · Score: -1

is utterly incompetent as an editor.
Please, for all that is just, fire his ass.
Re:Evolution by fractoid · 2014-01-20 14:07 · Score: 2

I've always thought that buying other companies is the first sign that a company has become creatively bankrupt. They now place more faith in the ability of strangers than they do in their own staff (or they'd build a competing product in-house).

--
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
Wait, you care but didn't know? by Phil+Urich · 2014-01-20 14:16 · Score: 1

I'm honestly a bit surprised that anyone interested in commentary by Linus Torvalds, Matthew Garrett and controversy over Canonical's policies in terms of copyright assignment (all of which is in the synopsis) wouldn't know what a CLA is.

--
I remember sigs. Oh, a simpler time!
1. Re:Wait, you care but didn't know? by tepples · 2014-01-20 16:40 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  A lot of people who skim Slashdot's front page don't know enough to know whether they need to care about a particular story. People don't know what they don't know.
2. Re:Wait, you care but didn't know? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 21:18 · Score: 0
  
  How do we know if we're interested if we don't know what the story is about? If your answer is "Oh well the story was only for people who already knew about it" then Slashdot isn't a blog and so isn't the place for it.
3. Re:Wait, you care but didn't know? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 23:48 · Score: 0
  
  A lot of people who whim Slashdot's front page have enough skill in reading comprehension to figure out what a CLA is from the summary, without knowing the TLA beforehand. Here's the hint that we're talking about copyright assignment:
  because the copyright assignment paperwork
FSF stipulates forever copyleft by Phil+Urich · 2014-01-20 14:24 · Score: 2

FYI: the FSF can (and has) relicensed code contributed to GNU projects under a proprietary license. (gcc and part of the toolchain)
Firstly, I'm not sure of examples where that's actually true, but it's at very least worth pointing out that the CLA that the FSF gives folks to sign (and FSF projects don't actually have to sign it, but they are encouraged to) stipulate that such code will always be available under a copyleft license---as Matthew Garrett points out in (one of) TFA. So regardless of any other distributions, the FSF has pledged that all code contributed under CLAs will be available to folks as copyleft-licensed code, end of story. That is fundamentally different from Canonical's CLA which contains no such clause, so unlike the FSF they could theoretically take a codebase proprietary and fail to release further versions under copyleft licenses. Big difference.

--
I remember sigs. Oh, a simpler time!
Slashdot is owned by a headhunter's job board by IgnorantMotherFucker · 2014-01-20 14:26 · Score: 1

It would not be hard at all to find the users who are consistently moderated up in stories relating to a given job skill. Say every time the Linux kernel is discussed, several of your comments get moderated to five. Now a headhunter needs a Linux kernel coder. They call over to the good folks at Dice, who supply them your email.

--
Please mail me URLs of software employers.
LGPLv2.1 allows static linking: ship .o files by tepples · 2014-01-20 15:12 · Score: 1

LGPL3 and GPL3 prevent tivoization. LGPL2.1 does not
What GPLv3 and LGPLv3 call "Installation Information" GPLv2 and LGPLv2.1 call "scripts used to control compilation and installation". LGPLv2.1 does permit static linking of "the Library" (a covered work) with a proprietary program so long as the EULA does not rule out end user modification: "you may also combine or link a 'work that uses the Library' with the Library to produce a work containing portions of the Library, and distribute that work under terms of your choice, provided that the terms permit modification of the work for the customer's own use and reverse engineering for debugging such modifications." Option 6a lets the application publisher ship .o files of a "work that uses the Library" (that is, the proprietary parts of the application) and "any data and [specialized] utility programs needed for reproducing the executable from it" along with the executable, and option 6c lets the application publisher offer to distribute a copy of said .o files and data to the owner of a lawfully made copy of a combined work. The fact that such "data" would have to include a private signing key is how even LGPLv2.1 could be read to defeat tivoization.
1. Re:LGPLv2.1 allows static linking: ship .o files by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 16:50 · Score: 0
  
  No that does not prevent tivoization. You can rebuild the executable, that is all that matters. This does not mean they need to provide a means for you to install it on the device. Apple could use an LGPL2.1 library in iOS and even if I rebuilt iOS with a modified version of that LGPL2.1 library I still couldnt install it on my phone.
2. Re:LGPLv2.1 allows static linking: ship .o files by tepples · 2014-01-20 16:59 · Score: 1
  
  You can rebuild the executable, that is all that matters. This does not mean they need to provide a means for you to install it on the device.
  If the executable contains a valid signature, and they do not provide a means to add a valid signature, then they do not provide a means to rebuild the executable.
3. Re:LGPLv2.1 allows static linking: ship .o files by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 17:08 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  If the executable contains a valid signature, and they do not provide a means to add a valid signature, then they do not provide a means to rebuild the executable.
  The signature is not required for rebuilding the executable, it is only required for installation and execution on a particular platform which the LGPLv2.1 does not specify is required. Your interpretation of the LGPLv2.1 is incorrect, that is the very reason for the additions to section 4 of the LGPLv3 that specifically call out installation and execution of the executable:
  and only to the extent that such information is necessary to install and execute a modified version of the Combined Work produced by recombining or relinking the Application with a modified version of the Linked Version.
4. Re:LGPLv2.1 allows static linking: ship .o files by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-21 01:59 · Score: 0
  
  All (L)GPLv2 requires other than source code is the "scripts used to control compilation and installation". If signature is (or requires) a manual step (e.g. entering a password to unlock the private key) then this is not in any commonly used sense of the word a "script" and is not therefore required to be distributed by (L)GPLv2.
What? by fyngyrz · 2014-01-20 16:49 · Score: -1, Flamebait

The Clitoral Licking Association will hear about this, I assure you. A penetrating association of cunning linguists, we dedicate our lives to pulling back hoods and erecting the little heads found underneath. It's a base canard that all our work is performed tongue in cheek; not so! A frontal assault on the situation is generally the most efficacious, although we cannot deny that circling around to the rear has its uses from time to time. It taint just a rumor. Foreplay, and occasionally, four play, is all too often underrated.

--
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
1. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 17:02 · Score: 0
  
  Oh, but there's no way *that* CLA refers to people grokking Slashdot...
2. Re:What? by fyngyrz · 2014-01-22 05:41 · Score: 1
  
  Hey, check it out. My first post to reach both +5 funny **and** -1 flamebait.
  Slashdot moderation is just hilariously broken. This, my friends, is why I read at -1 at all times.
  
  --
  I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Not true by linuxhansl · 2014-01-20 17:45 · Score: 4, Informative

Let me just go ahead and call this bullshit. I am a committer to Apache HBase, and we see (and encourage) drive by patches all the time. The only folks who have to sign a CLA are the committers themselves, which seems reasonable to me.
1. Re:Not true by trawick · 2014-01-21 01:33 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks for bringing this up. It is the same with the Apache projects I work on. A CLA is required to get commit access or to donate substantial pieces of code*, but not to submit the sort of patches we see from the wider community on a regular basis. (*I guess the distinction is whether or not a code donation could be considered to be separately copyrightable, but IANAL.)
2. Re:Not true by shia84 · 2014-01-21 02:37 · Score: 2
  
  Not sure how that works.
  If somebody just fixes a handful of characters, they aren't eligible for copyright in either the Apache or Linux code... so that sort of drive-by patchers aren't relevant for the discussion.
  But if I "drive-by contribute" nontrivial code to someone with Apache commit access, that code is still under my copyright and the committer is not allowed to push it under the CLA unless I agree to the CLA as well (or resign my copyright to the committer). Which brings us back to square one.
  Unless I'm completely missing something. Please enlighten me.
Define "the executable" by tepples · 2014-01-20 18:18 · Score: 1

The signature is not required for rebuilding the executable, it is only required for installation and execution on a particular platform which the LGPLv2.1 does not specify is required.
Then we differ on how "the executable" is defined. Some platforms sign an installation package containing the executable, some sign the executable itself, and some sign both. For example, under Windows, both the MSI installation package and the EXE inside it can carry an Authenticode signature. Rebuilding "the executable" would require signing it.
1. Re:Define "the executable" by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 20:41 · Score: 0
  
  IANAL. But GPL (even version 2) requires preferred form for making modifications.
  I'm sure this should include signing keys if required by target OS.
2. Re:Define "the executable" by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-21 09:42 · Score: 0
  
  Then we differ on how "the executable" is defined.
  Your problem is that you include the signing key which is unnecessary because the same executable can be signed with different keys for different systems and can even be executed without being signed however since the provision of installation and execution is not part of the (L)GPL in versions before v3 that is irrelevant. Do you understand now?
  
  Some platforms sign an installation package containing the executable, some sign the executable itself, and some sign both.
  That is irrelevant. Signing is a post build process that takes place after the executable has been built. I dont even have to sign it at all however if I want to install and execute it I may need to sign it depending on the platform and that is why installation and execution were added to GPL v3.
  
  For example, under Windows, both the MSI installation package and the EXE inside it can carry an Authenticode signature. Rebuilding "the executable" would require signing it.
  False. The signature is not required for rebuilding, it is required for installation and execution which is not a provision of (L)GPL before v3.
We need a new agreement by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 18:38 · Score: 0

To ensure Linus keeps introducing kernel vulnerabilities in every release. I need to root my phone after all..
So far .. thankfully they keep on "accidentally" introducing vulnerabilities every single release. But there needs to be an enforcement on that.
The GPL is not hard to understand. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 22:31 · Score: 0

Unlike the so called "legal documents" we all "sign" all the time, by clicking ok (EULA), or browsing a web site (terms of service), the GPL is not written in lawyer-speak. It's easy to understand, if you sit down and read it.
Most of the people arguing what the GPL does or does not mean, have never read it, but simply repeat what they read on the internet (probably slashdot, making it all a circular agument).
Canonical-hate by jones_supa · 2014-01-20 23:07 · Score: 3, Informative

Linus is correct: even at Slashdot I see a lot of people hating Canonical just for the sake of doing it. They systematically hate Mark Shuttleworth and every new component that is introduced to Ubuntu.
FUD by jimjag · 2014-01-21 01:17 · Score: 1

With Eclipse and Apache, the CLA is a Contributor License *Agreement*. It is NOT a Copyright *ASSIGNMENT*. Shame on Linus for spreading such FUD!
Drive by patches by jimjag · 2014-01-21 01:22 · Score: 1

Linus gets it wrong again: The ASF does NOT require CLAs for "drive-by" patches. It only requires them for official contributors or committers, not for people providing patches on email lists, via JIRA, etc... Only when people have obtained the merit to directly change the official code is an iCLA required. As it *should be* for IP tracking. Double shame!
No name calling! by MetalliQaZ · 2014-01-21 03:36 · Score: 1

Wow, a Slashdot posting about Linus that doesn't include swearing, name-calling, or flame-baiting. Today is a good day.

--
"Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
Analogy Fail by TangoMargarine · 2014-01-21 04:18 · Score: 1

The Red Pill meant that Neo *was* ready.

--
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
Dont forget your CLA's by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-21 08:00 · Score: 0

Dont forget your
Clitoral, Labial, Anal
Its an order of operation
executable adj. able to be executed by tepples · 2014-01-21 12:53 · Score: 1

Signing is a post build process that takes place after the executable has been built.
The word "executable" means "able to be executed". On a platform that enforces digital signatures, a computer program is not executable (and therefore not an executable) until it's signed.
1. Re:executable adj. able to be executed by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-21 14:35 · Score: 0
  
  The word "executable" means "able to be executed".
  which it can be on any platform that does not require signed executables. Signing is not a requirement to be executable except when you are talking about executing it on a platform that enforces this and the GPLv2 does not have any provision regarding this. If i build an iOS executable but don't sign it it doesn't cease to be an executable.
  
  On a platform that enforces digital signatures, a computer program is not executable (and therefore not an executable) until it's signed.
  Nope! I can build "an executable" for iOS on my Mac even though it is not executable on my Mac and it does not cease to be "an executable". Versions of the GPL prior to v3 make no provision for that case because execution is not covered if you have been reading then you know this but you persist in being intentionally obtuse and assuming that you can interpret everything literally. Yet specific provision for this exists in the GPLv3 it could not be clearer, it is written in black and white, plain as day.
On what platform is such an executable executable? by tepples · 2014-01-21 16:55 · Score: 1

If i build an iOS executable but don't sign it it doesn't cease to be an executable.
On what platform is such an executable executable? If you can tell me which platform, I'll do my best to stop being obtuse.
Re:On what platform is such an executable executab by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-21 17:18 · Score: 0

On what platform is such an executable executable? If you can tell me which platform, I'll do my best to stop being obtuse.
iPhone/iPad simulator and jailbroken iPhone/iPad.
When the DMCA exceptions expire by tepples · 2014-01-22 02:09 · Score: 1

Thank you. Let me approach a right angle: I thought the iPhone/iPad simulator used apps recompiled for x86 instead of being an actual emulator like the Android SDK's simulator. But you have a good point about jailbroken devices, at least until the current round of DMCA exceptions expires. At that point, anyone calling an unsigned iOS executable "executable" may be encouraging unlawful circumvention of access control measures.
1. Re:When the DMCA exceptions expire by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-22 09:01 · Score: 0
  
  I thought the iPhone/iPad simulator used apps recompiled for x86 instead of being an actual emulator like the Android SDK's simulator.
  Doesnt matter, the executable doesnt have to be the same and in fact the whole point of being able to do this is that the executable is explicitly not the same. There is nothing to suggest it needs to be the same architecture so long as the code has been reproduced in executable form. You can argue that all you want but the fact is there is no language suggesting the executable version of the code has to be the same architecture.
  
  But you have a good point about jailbroken devices, at least until the current round of DMCA exceptions expires. At that point, anyone calling an unsigned iOS executable "executable" may be encouraging unlawful circumvention of access control measures.
  Only in the US and only if the DMCA is actually enforceable in this area, which I doubt.