| Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the post also links the "add Canonical CLA check #12665" [0], and my understanding is that "retain copyright" here is like a typical forum agreement where you going forward must agree to a perpetual worldwide unlimited license to Canonical that they can use as they please per [1]: >In effect, you’re giving us a licence, but you still own the copyright — so you retain the right to modify your code and use it in other projects. You explicitly do retain ownership, so you can then take that same code and contribute it elsewhere under any license you wish. The same author could contribute the same patch to both the LXD and the Incus fork. But some might object to being required to allow Canonical to specially license as they want. So your characterization seems unfair, and then gets kind of nasty at the end: >The author is pissed off because he can't build custom versions without redistributing the modifications Incus is a full fork, and Canonical has apparently been taking changes back from it as well as is often the case with such forks where both sides get value from each other. It's perfectly understandable for some folks to be bummed if that's no longer the case, and there is nothing evil about the Apache2 license. There's plenty of history that in OSS going back to the beginning, no need for insinuations or attacks. Shouldn't throw around "FUD" at core authors just because they're a touch blindsided. ---- 0: https://github.com/canonical/lxd/pull/12665/commits/eb5c773d... 1: https://ubuntu.com/legal/contributors |
And for me this totally reverses the situation, AGPL + CLA means "We can make it proprietary tomorrow, and only we can do it".