 |
 |
 |
 |
| 1-877-253-0617 x27 Email us | |||
| Login or Create Account | |||
| FOSSLC is a non-profit organization that specializes in technology and know-how to record conferences with excellent quality. Click on the icons below to view great videos from communities we are actively involved with: | ||||||||
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Where should we host freeseer code?
Posted on 06. Feb, 2010 by aross
github (stay)
88% (14 votes)
fedorahosted (move)
13% (2 votes)
Total votes: 16
Share this page:
Comments
Outcome: stick with github for now
On behalf of the team, I would like to thank everyone for their input and thoughts both here, on the mailing list, and in person. Based on the input, we have decided to stay with github for now.
The purpose of the Fedora CLA
It's my understanding that the CLA isn't intended to cover code that's under an open source license. Instead, it's intended to cover spec files, wiki contributions, mailing list postings, and other contributions that are not specifically under another license.Most of the projects on FedoraHosted are licensed under a regular open source license, such as the GPL, BSD, or something else approved by the OSI. This is the reason for section 1D of the CLA, which says that submissions may explicitly made under a license other than the CLA. And, obviously, patches submitted to a GPL project are covered by the GPL, not the CLA.The suggestion of hosting under FedoraHosted (vs Github) came from the event FAD and was made simply to take advantage of some better tracking and discussion tools -- not to interfere with the Freeseer licensing.(FOSSLC used Freeseer to record the presentations at FSOSS 2009, which I co-chaired, and I'm on the Fedora Board and was present at the Events FAD, but clearly IANAL, IANTFPL, etc...)
Thank you
Thank you kindly for this clarification Chris. Much appreciated.
(above by Chris Tyler)
Sorry, forgot to sign the post above ("The Purpose of the Fedora CLA").-Chris Tyler, Seneca College
Why do you care?
I get that you have concerns over the contribution agreement. What I don't understand is why it matters? If you're giving your code away for free anyway, then what difference does it make if they can use it as they see fit?
Why do you?
The real question is why was the idea to move was brought up at all? Votes right now show 8-0 Github to fedora. If Fedora has something against Github, I haven't heard what it is. I see no need to complicate things with a move and additional legalese, regardless of whether or not the terms are disagreeable.
A few thoughts
Thanks for the comments everyone.
First let me be clear, we aren't intending to criticize Fedora/Redhat in any way. We are trying to make sense of the options presented to us and pick the one that seems to fit best. What Redhat has done with Fedora hosted is generous and we appreciate the offer to host our code there.
Where FOSSLC (and now this new software, Freeseer) should be on the spectrum of software freedom has been something we've been coming to grips with for some time. I've written about this issue before. Despite the challenges, in under 1 year, we have developed a video capture solution (freeseer of course) that does what we need to do in term of capturing great presentations and demos. Recently, in response to feedback and push from people involved with Fedora, we have moved to adopt some new technologies (gstreamer for instance) that lets us support 100% free software and unencumbered codecs. We're still tuning this to perfect it, but it's there, and it works well.
The issue with the contribution agreement relates to the heart of the principles we're trying to live up to. In fairness to Redhat, we have not approached them to see if we can negotiate the agreement or substitute it with another. I have no reason to think they wouldn't be quite reasonable... they have been nothing but supportive and engaged us in good faith thus far. However, getting the lawyers involved takes time and expense so we decided to try and make this a binary choice for now.
The beauty of git, and open source code in general, is that we could decide to stay with github for now and move to another facility in the future. I see the numbers too... 8-0 is a strong message thus far. Thank you very much for the input.
Email discussion
The related discussion on our mailing list can be found here.Related to this, the github terms of use are here. Quoting "We claim no intellectual property rights over the material you provide to the Service. Your profile and materials uploaded remain yours. However, by setting your pages to be viewed publicly, you agree to allow others to view your Content. By setting your repositories to be viewed publicly, you agree to allow others to view and fork your
repositories."
Does their contribution agreement override the GPL
I looked at your code. It looks like you are licensing it using the GPL version 3. I am not a lawyer, but it does look to me as though the language in the contributor agreement means Redhat can do what ever they want with the code and they do not have to give changes back. Whether they realistically would or not is another matter, but if this gives the legal right, then it runs counter to the spirit of why you chose the GPL in the first place.
That's a very good point.
I'm not sure, but you raise a very good point.