On 05/30/2018 01:45 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote:

> I have a nit question:
> Can we please call the agreement "FLA" instead of "CLA", since it is
> derived from FSFE's FLA-2.0, and is still a FLA at it's heart, rather
> than a USian-centric CLA?
> 

^ That's not a 'nit question, it's a big deal!!!

After researching the FSFE-style "FLA", it's important:

https://fsfe.org/activities/ftf/fla.en.html (FAQ of sorts)

Q) What if trustee misuses the rights I gave to them, e.g.
by re-licensing Free Software as a proprietary one?

A) FLA offers a special clause for this kind of situation
to protect the Free Software project against potentially
malicious intentions of Trustee. According to this
provision, if Trustee acts against the principles of Free
Software, all granted rights and licences return to their
original owners. That means Trustee will be effectively
prevented from continuing any activity which is contrary
to principles of Free Software.

~(end quote of FAQ, etc)~

That is to say: in the past, I've refused to contribute
when asked for a generic copyright assignment, especially
when more "permissive" (not as libre / free) licenses were
already causing me to heistate.

If it's a generic "assign all copyrights", then no.
I would not sign a copyright assignment which doesn't
look after my intent to work on libre / free-type works.

yes please. do it as FLA if possible. ::thumbs up::

--kuza