SF Conservancy now accepting copyright assignment for any GPL software
sfconservancy.orgLegally, this is a screw. DO NOT sign this form.
I'd love for SFC to have _joint_ copyright with me. I'd be glad to assign them copyright to odd lines of my code, while I keep the even ones, for instance. If they do enforcement for me, that's great. If damages help sustain their operations, so much the better.
However, this assignment allows them to:
- Sell my GPL code to Apple for use in their new iPad
- Relicense my AGPL code under the BSD license (or vice-versa)
... and so on. The whole point of free software licenses is to act as a sort of constitution or code-of-conduct. This just hands over the keys to the castle.
I would love to have this service, but I would never blindly hand over my copyright like this. I would definitely NOT sign anything with language like "irrevocably appoints Conservancy as their attorney-in-fact to take any necessary steps to perfect Conservancy’s rights under this Agreement." This just feels predatory.
I'm not attributing malice, but SFC should go back and draft an agreement that's fair to both sides. SFC should guarantee basic rights, such as that the license won't be changed without my permission, not "The Conservancy will use its discretion for any relicensing of the Works under other free and open source software licenses. Decisions about relicensing made by Conservancy will apply to its assignees and successors."
I've seen not-for-profits drift from their roots, in one case, even selling all similar assets and rights to a for-profit.
(As a footnote, if they wanted this to be sustainable, they might give the assignor some portion of damages if they ever need to enforce the license)
The relicensing language is not entirely unreasonable in my opinion. There are huge portions of open source copyright thinking that have never actually been analyzed by an appellate court, and none of it has ever been seriously examined by the Supreme Court. In the event that some core component(s) of your favorite flavor of the GPL are found to be unsound or some other legal catastrophe happens, they need the ability to switch to something else if they don't want to just close up shop. The idea of trying to contact every copyright holder and having to bargain with them over relicensing sounds like a nightmare, and contractual language like "relicensing of the Works under a substantially similar license" is a non-starter.
You're taking a risk. Do you think they're going to try and hijack your copyright for some nefarious purpose, or do you think they might need flexibility in relicensing your work in the future?
I’m not sure I’m grokking this. As you note, the hard part about changing license is if the copyright for a project is jointly held by a large number of contributors.
Contacting all those contributors to get them to agree to a license change is a large undertaking. But assigning the copyright to the SFC Conservancy also requires contacting all of them for their agreement. If my concern is ensuring flexibility in licensing, the original developer might as well just contact them all and have them sign a CLA or similar, granting control of the copyright to themselves. Then they’ve got the same flexibility, without needing the SFC.
> Contacting all those contributors to get them to agree to a license change is a large undertaking.
With the right licensing language it doesn't need to be.
Authors must maintain contactability through emails listed in source / git commits, if authors fail to respond to pings about changes to licensing in a timely manner they forfeit their rights.
> Authors must maintain contactability through emails listed in source / git commits, if authors fail to respond to pings about changes to licensing in a timely manner they forfeit their rights.
That’s just not the case.
I meant each author who accepts their offer and assigns their copyrights, not each contributor to an individual project.
I think it is almost guaranteed that they will try to relicense my work for some nefarious purpose at some point in their history. I think it is highly unlikely to happen while their current leadership is in place.
FSF leadership is currently having a crisis since, due to recent events, they realized that Stallman is not eternal. FSF-owned code is an incredible asset. If there were a corporate takeover of the FSF, that could have very bad outcomes.
Regarding contacting every owner, that'd be a nightmare in 1960. In 2022: "We will contact you at the email address on file," an ability to opt in / opt out via web form, and some language about changing to equivalent media (e.g. SMS, fax, robocall, USPS, AOL Instant Messenger, or whatever).
I'll mention I picked out a few examples of nasty legal language. The whole agreement is nasty, unfair, and one-sided. I like the concept a lot, but I'd never sign language like that. I like working with organizations who try to be fair to both sides.
Oh -- and for language which applies to "successors" -- all bets are off. I specifically do not want the SFC to assign my copyright to a successor. I've seen specific examples where a successor to a non-profit was a for-profit.
What you seem to want is pro bono representation, which is just not what they're offering. It's apples to oranges. Achieving something that approaches your idea of fairness would require negotiation and the maintenance of an ongoing legally significant relationship. I don't know much about the politics of the SF Conservancy, but the language in the contract they're offering does not jump out as especially unfair or extreme. Accounting for details like successors in interest is how lawyers write tight contracts.
No, pro bono representation would mean I'd get the damages. I'm supportive of SFC getting the damages.
What I want -- both for myself and for the community -- is checks-and-balances to make sure SFC continues doing things in the interest of myself, and more broadly, of the community. A single entity holding a pile of copyrights to FLOSS, with no checks-and-balances, is a liability to the community.
I lose respect for an organization in this business who doesn't understand checks-and-balances and oversight.
SFC is an enemy of Richard Stallman.
In spite of the fact that the SFC would not exist without RMS, they explicitly supported the attempt to eject him from the Free Software Foundation on the basis of trumped up allegations.
The SFC is Brad Kuhn's attempt to profit off the GPL, which he couldn't do when he was associated with the FSF or the Software Freedom Law Center.
You can take a look at the 990's, Bradley is _definitely_ NOT getting rich off of his work with the SFC.
For anyone curious, Bradley made $141k in 2020 including benefits (the deadline for their 2021 return is yet to pass): https://sfconservancy.org/docs/software-freedom-conservancy_...
Ah, so the same as a software developer at a mid-size government agency?
While not doing any software development, sounds great to me.
Yeah, he is "Treasurer, et. al." on the 990 and "Policy Fellow and Hacker-in-Residence" on the SFC site's Board list.
After he left the FSF he joined the Software Freedom Law Center (Eben Moglen's operation), but only lasted a year. He then started the Software Freedom Conservancy, which resulted in a lawsuit from the SFLC, due the similarity in name and focus.
Mid-career developer in the US government, yes.
Meanwhile, John Sullivan, ED of the FSF itself, made $112K, including benefits. That is more in line with a small educational foundation.
I don't know anything about the person or the org, but there's clear difference between "attempt to profit" which was the accusation and "getting rich", both in that one requires success and that one can come before the other. And from the other reply to you stating a six-figure salary it would seem he is profiting, even if it's a perfectly reasonable amount.
I don't care if he makes money. The important part of GP's post was,
>they explicitly supported the attempt to eject him from the Free Software Foundation on the basis of trumped up allegations
> I'd be glad to assign them copyright to odd lines of my code, while I keep the even ones, for instance
Individual lines of code (or even the odd or even lines as a whole, separate from the other) don't seem likely to usually be works subject to copyright.
> I'd love for SFC to have _joint_ copyright with me. I'd be glad to assign them copyright to odd lines of my code, while I keep the even ones, for instance
Jointly owning the copyright is different from them owning half and you owning half.
presumably that is why he listed both options separately.
"For instance" means an example, not an alternative.
Ah, i see what you mean now. I read it the other way initially.
You can read it as you like.
It's the fine art of picking apart emails and internet comments for typos and grammar, rather than for meaning, and then nitpicking (referring to baawolf, not LightHugger).
I sometimes flip words when I type. I might have a completely wrong word, repeat something, omit a word, or otherwise. Others do that too. Part of that is typos, and part of that is rewriting as a type. I don't recall what I was thinking, but I suspect I started with "example," edited to "alternative," and didn't re-edit the whole post.
Others do similar things. Worse, plenty of people make errors on the internet. A few lessons I've learned:
- I stopped freaking out when Someone Is Wrong on the Internet. There's enough of that I don't need to correct all of it, and I don't think people doing that are performing much of a public service.
- I use throwaway accounts. Forums like this are more fun if I can talk naturally. I might have be aware of the fine distinctions between joint and half-ownership, but didn't spend hours proofreading a random internet comment, since that would take HN from a fine distraction to a chore. The internet is more fun if I e.g. don't need to be cancelled by the woke crowd over a typo. I think real names on Twitter are a horrible idea, since I'd never engage in any forum where I might be held publicly accountable for every mistake, braino, typo, and bad idea.
- Conversely, I look for smart things people say, insights, and good ideas. I simply ignore dumb ones. I read far-right, far-left, foreign propaganda, and other sources of questionable information. My experience is that there is a mixture of falsehoods and insights I wouldn't have come across elsewhere. I learn a lot. Plus, reading critically, I know what different groups are exposed to.
Oh -- and this is doubly true for WFH and emails. If you assume people always believe what they wrote (as opposed to omitting a "not" mid-sentence) -- you'll run into trouble.
That's an off-topic rant, but I hope it settles the question. I meant neither of those, and didn't edit that deeply.
> not-for-profits drift from their roots, in one case, even selling all similar assets and rights to a for-profit
that is a neat trick, since a non-profit cannot own and sell assets like that, that I know of, in the USA. details? hogwash?
Non-profits can absolutely sell assets to for-profit institutions. See: Every non-profit that sells things.
Or for a nefarious but legal example, see the attempted selling off the rights to the .org TLD rights by ICANN. https://thenextweb.com/news/hurray-the-org-tld-wont-be-sold-...
Non-profits can sell assets if its in accordance with their mission. Why wouldn't they be able to?
They can sell them if not in accordance with their mission by paying taxes on the sale as well (UBIT). There are very few restrictions on what a nonprofit can and can’t do.
https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/tools-resources/unrelate...
in the USA ? that is absolutely not true.. could an actual experienced attorney please look into this ... I think you people are confused about "selling t-shirts" versus disposal of actual assets.
I think you're confused about what an asset is.
Be it a T-shirt, a building, or IP, if a nonprofit owns it they can sell or license it.
blatent contradictory statements here, without substantiation.. Do I have to find the legal documents on demand of this thread? this is USA non-profit law that is being discussed? settled law ?
The only contradictions here are basically every commenter contradicting your (obviously incorrect) assertion that non-profits cannot sell assets to for-profit entities in the US.
When you make the claim, you are generally expected to provide proof, yes that's how it works.
Can you please quote the part of that document that you think substantiates your claim? All I found was unrelated information about the "termination of a private foundation". The words 'sale' and 'sell' appear zero times in the whole page.
The example I know of, I can't talk about. What happened was likely illegal, but in the grey zone. Individuals profited to the tune of millions individually, and the transaction was in the hundreds of millions. Law enforcement never got involved, so I'll never know what a court might have decided.
However, I'd encourage you to look into hospitals, industry groups like the RIAA, family foundations like the Trump Foundation, and similar organizations. You can find your own examples easily enough.
That's not to mention non-profits hijacked for new purposes (e.g. the current move away from founding values to woke values for a few organizations that's been bugging HN commentators lately).
(And yes, I do know the difference between a 501(c)3, 501(c)6, family foundation, etc).
> What happened was likely illegal, but in the grey zone.
this
Search for "deaccession" as an example
this is probably reasonable .. the others are less so
I could imagine:
"In order to raise money to protect free software we have to transfer this one license to Oracle"
yes, that might be a danger given the context. agree. I would like an opinion about transfer of assets from 501(c)x to a (edit) for-profit corporation though.. some of these statements are just not true in the articles of non-profit taxation, last I looked into it.
> I would like an opinion about transfer of assets from 501(c)x to a corporation though
Most 501c entities are corporations.
You probably mean “to a business entity that is not itself a 501c”, but generally a 501c is free to sell assets to other entities without regard to form or (absence of) nonprofit status, though there are other restrictions that might come into play.
people here do not understand that a for-profit company seeks to avoid or minimize tax, and that simple flipping of (appreciating) assets from a non-profit and back could be used extensively to avoid tax ? and that the IRS specifically precludes that, in the articles of non-profit incorporation? not "selling t-shirts or anything else in line with the mission" but held assets? there is some term I am missing, and I think Commonwealth countries are also taking turns here.. there is too much distance in the points of view .. there have to be some assumptions unsaid
You're the one confused here. You're making a standard programmer bug of reading IRS pages like computer code.
If you'd like an example of a sale, look at the sale of edX to 2U. A for-profit got:
- Courses from partner universities, developed believing they were contributing to a non-profit
- Data from millions of students, who believed they were entrusting it to MIT and Harvard
Foundations, individuals, etc. who had supported edX financially found their donations commercialized too.
MIT/Harvard got $800M. MIT decision-makers got cushy jobs at 2U.
> look at the sale of edX to 2U
yes, that would be interesting to see the details, like the specific tax+governance documents for whatever specifically got those assets from the non-profit, as you point out. IANL
Quick note that the SF Conservancy has been advancing a scary new approach to liability with GPL.
Historically, the rights and responsibilities related to GPL comes from the copyright holder. If the GPL was not followed, the person who wrote the code could optionally take action. This actually works out pretty well, because folks who actually code tend NOT to file frivioulus type legal cases and things were reasonable.
The SF Conservancy is now trying to SUE folks over using GPL code they had no hand in creating. This would let them leverage a very extreme position to after the fact re-write what the licensing meant. BTW, they have a long history of this poor behavior. Here is Linus Torvalds notes on them.
"I actually think we should talk about GPL enforcement at the kernel summit, because I think it's an important issue," Torvalds gently began, "but we should talk about it the way we talk about other issues: among kernel developers. No lawyers present unless they are in the capacity of a developer and maintainer of actual code, and in particular, absolutely not the Software Freedom Conservancy." - Linus Torvalds
Note this goes hand in hand with others attempts to re-write the GPL following their failures to force through the GPLv3 such as the EFF. This involves lots of handwaving and appeals to history but doesn't match what developers understood the GPLv2 to mean at all.
This shows that once you get the lawyers involved, it's seriously game over in some cases. Even though they were not lawyers, the early folks created very useful clear licenses.
> "I actually think we should talk about GPL enforcement at the kernel summit, because I think it's an important issue," Torvalds gently began, "but we should talk about it the way we talk about other issues: among kernel developers. No lawyers present unless they are in the capacity of a developer and maintainer of actual code, and in particular, absolutely not the Software Freedom Conservancy." - Linus Torvalds
This is fundamentally a pretty stupid take on the issue, to be honest. I can understand why Linus might want to ignore the SF Conservancy in particular here, but banning all lawyers in general is a stupid idea when you're discussing legal documents (that's what software licenses are). It's akin to saying "let's talk about why our car isn't working but NO CAR MECHANICS ALLOWED."
If what you're talking about is legal issues, you absolutely should involve lawyers, and generally earlier is better. This is particularly true when intellectual property is involved, as neglecting to take certain actions can completely foreclose future legal remedies.
> can understand why Linus might want to ignore the SF Conservancy in particular here, but banning all lawyers in general is a stupid idea when you're discussing legal documents
It's a perfectly valid approach if your goal is to discuss developer's concerns/priorities/goals for GPL enforcement and not legal tactics to achieve some known set of goals, and particularly if your goal is to avoid a talk at mixed purposes because some people have goals in mind that are not agreed on and are trying to talk tactics while other people are trying to talk goals and no one gets anywhere.
From the lawyers I've spoken to about this, Linus's view on the GPL and the chosen enforcement strategy has long been known to be nonsense. But nothing will change as long as the kernel developers are intentionally burying their head in the sand and acting like they know better than the legal system.
I'm just curious here. If I as a developer want to license my code a certain way (and enforce that license in a certain way) what authority do these lawyers have to tell me I'm "stupid".
Especially if my approach has single handedly created the largest body of copyleft / collaborative / open source software out there with massive amounts of actual collaboration.
The irony is so strong here. Basically jerks, who can't get along with others (including each other, witness the battles between SFC and SFLC etc etc) with little value creation themselves want to force their view on others, even though folks have already voted with their feet.
By all means create the Affero GPLv3. Try to get folks to write software for it. That's fine.
But don't pretend to be on some moral high ground speaking for developers / creators who wrote the code. Let them speak for themselves. And don't go back and having lost the effort to get Affero GPLv3 or whatever adopted close the various SAAS and Tivo loopholes, go back and say some old license has these terms.
> If I as a developer want to license my code a certain way (and enforce that license in a certain way) what authority do these lawyers have to tell me I'm "stupid".
The exact same authority developers have when they tell their clients that they cannot run a 1,000,000 person site off the phone they forget to charge sometimes. Or even a designer telling a client their color scheme is poor (it clashes, isn't color-blind friendly, and renders poorly on anything smaller than a tablet)! It's a technical matter and they are paid SMEs.
They aren't saying Linus's goals are stupid. They're saying the methods he's using to achieve the goals are. Which makes sense. Because he's not a lawyer.
> They aren't saying Linus's goals are stupid. They're saying the methods he's using to achieve the goals are. Which makes sense.
So if lawyers were in charge and rampaged around suing the shit out of every company that made a mistake when using Linux, that would better suit Linus's goals? Only Linus can speak to Linus's goals, but I doubt this is what Linus really wants.
> if lawyers were in charge and rampaged around suing the shit out of every company that made a mistake when using Linux, that would better suit Linus's goals?
No. But if they went around sending demand letters that were complied with (because they came from a reputable law firm) by getting the code open sourced it would. I'm not saying these lawyers should be listened to. I'm saying some lawyers should. And excluding all lawyers is as dumb as trying to get funded for your FaceBook clone saying you only need the money to "hire a programmer" would be.
> Only Linus can speak to Linus's goals
This is nonsense. I might be wrong but I can certainly speak to his goals. We can even discuss what we think they are.
> If I as a developer want to license my code a certain way (and enforce that license in a certain way) what authority do these lawyers have to tell me I'm "stupid".
This is like saying “If I want to write my code a certain way, what right do compiler authors and language designers have to tell me code contains ‘syntax errors’ and ‘obvious bugs’”. On some level you can write whatever code you want. But if you want it to work the way you intend, there’s some rules that have to be followed
> If I want to write my code a certain way, what right do compiler authors and language designers have to tell me code contains ‘syntax errors’ and ‘obvious bugs’
That's not a reasonable comparison.
1. Licenses are fundamentally open to interpretation, programming languages have specifications. Yes, the specifications and compiler aren't perfect, however, code is designed to be specific. Legal agreements on the other hands are very intentionally the opposite. Legal agreements consciously avoid being overly specific in order to be broad and all encompassing. Legal agreements fundamentally have access to (and are evaluated with respect to) the concepts of "fair" and "reasonable"; which very intentionally have no strict definition. You need to argue your case.
2. More importantly, licenses are contracts. They're a civil matter (not criminal). Meaning the copyright holder can chose whether or not they want to enforce their license. That's a fundamental right of being a copyright holder. If you consciously don't enforce, you may lose the right to enforce (at least fully), but that is the license holder's call.
There's lots of ways that licenses can be objectively wrong. They can contain content that renders them invalid, or wording that legally means something different from what the author intended. A lawyer has the "right" to point out such flaws, and refusing to consult a lawyer won't make those flaws go away.
You are of course right about copyright holders being able to chose whether to enforce their license (at least if they were smart enough to use a license that will actually stand up in court!)
This type of positioning by the SFC is horrendous.
Why do I have to follow the SFC rules / interpretation (by the way very flawed) when I write my own code.
Seriously, what gives them this right over my code. I reject this, even if GPL licensed.
Of course, I get the argument you and they are trying to make. By releasing stuff with GPL software I may have written, I've somehow bound myself to release my decryption keys, unlock my devices etc etc. You are making my point for me, that is NOT what most authors of GPLv2 licensed code want or agree to. And just saying "because lawyers" doesn't make it so.
This is a good example of the hazards of involving lawyers I think. Wet becomes dry and dry becomes wet.
You (presumably) live in a country with rule-of-law. That means that if you are involved in a court case related to your GPL code, the legal system in your country will determine the outcome. Refusing to consult with lawyer in advance about what the outcome of such a legal proceeding will probably be, isn't going to improve your odds!
I have no clue whether whatever SFC has been claiming about the legal status of GPL is true or not (quite frankly, I haven't bothered even looking at what they're saying). But if the legal system's interpretation of GPLv2 doesn't match what most authors want or agree to, that sounds like precisely the kind of thing authors should want a lawyer to tell them, so they have a chance to switch to a different license.
The issue is the legal system has, to date, largely followed the understood intent of the GPLv2.
Consulting with the SFC does nothing to advance anything.
Harald Welte has had great success getting folks to release source code. However, he does not threaten commercial use of GPL software, no unlock keys / signing keys etc are needed.
> If I as a developer want to license my code a certain way (and enforce that license in a certain way) what authority do these lawyers have to tell me I'm "stupid".
The first part of the statement--if you want to license your code a certain way--your lawyer should be to work with you to find a way to legally do that. Unless you want something patently absurd like "I want a way to let me murder any idiots who use my code without any consequences whatsoever."
It's the parenthetical that's problematic: you can't control how the law will be interpreted, and if you've got an incorrect interpretation of the law, you'll be laughed out of the courtroom. See, for example, any sovereign citizen case.
Goodness.
Look at the GPLv2 (written by a CODER).
Compare it to the GPLv3 (written by these expert lawyers).
Which is clearer, more understandable, just more rational?
Which is the license that has the larger adoption on more code used by more folks.
And despite all the claims here, intent is going to matter. When you sue Linus and say the GPL doesn't mean what he and everyone else actually creating this code think it means, then he's going to say, this was our intent. And you are going to have a VERY tall mountain to climb.
> Which is clearer, more understandable, just more rational?
Honestly, just quickly looking through the two licenses to answer a simple question... GPLv3 [1].
From a legal perspective, "simpler" documents tend to be less clear, because a lot more of the interpretation will rely on common law jurisprudence [2], and the "common" here doesn't mean "everybody agrees"--it in fact means "every jurisdiction has its own set of rules that may or may not translate directly in other jurisdiction."
> And despite all the claims here, intent is going to matter. When you sue Linus and say the GPL doesn't mean what he and everyone else actually creating this code think it means, then he's going to say, this was our intent. And you are going to have a VERY tall mountain to climb.
Given that a software license is close to a take-it-or-leave-it contract, ambiguous interpretations are generally going to be interpreted in favor of the person who has the take-it-or-leave-it option--which in this case is not going to be Linus and co.
[1] The criteria I used: "how do patents interact with this license." From what I can tell, GPLv2 technically doesn't actually contain a clause where the licensor grants the licensee any and all necessary patents--it instead talks about what happens if the code violates a third party's patent. Admittedly, reading the GPLv2 to not include a patent license grant is somewhat of a malicious reading, but the GPLv3's verbiage here is pretty explicit: "Each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free patent license under the contributor's essential patent claims, to make, use, sell, offer for sale, import and otherwise run, modify and propagate the contents of its contributor version."
[2] I'm limiting my analysis here to US jurisdictions, because that's what I know.
If GPLv3 had been GPLv2 plus patent stuff and a few other things it'd likely have been very welcomed.
For folks following along, the GPLv3 is more than 2x the length of the GPLv2
"If you convey an object code work under this section in, or with, or specifically for use in, a User Product, and the conveying occurs as part of a transaction in which the right of possession and use of the User Product is transferred to the recipient in perpetuity or for a fixed term (regardless of how the transaction is characterized), the Corresponding Source conveyed under this section must be accompanied by the Installation Information. But this requirement does not apply if neither you nor any third party retains the ability to install modified object code on the User Product"
Give you a feel for the GPLv3 style :)
absolutely disagree with this paternalistic interpretation.. coders are typically literate. Your example claims some exaggerated illiterate premise and then uses that to say "talk to a lawyer instead" .. no comment beyond that since we obviously have different concepts of what rights of an author are...
If you want some examples of legal consequences you might not otherwise anticipate:
* Estoppel. Not going after someone when you are made aware of their violations may preclude you from ever being able to go after them.
* Severability. If one clause of your contract is unenforceable, the entire contract may become unenforceable unless you have a clause saying otherwise. (And even then, sometimes that won't apply!).
Taking the audience of HN as a reasonable sample of competent coders, I have seen more than a few commenters give very confident and very incorrect interpretations of the law. I am not so presumptuous to think that I am not in that class, although I do hope to do so more rarely than the average commenter.
And for what it's worth, I don't believe that the exaggerated premise I used was one that requires a lawyer to understand; it was merely an example that was so outrageous it would not be unreasonable for a lawyer to tell you that it was impossible for you to do what you want to do. An example that is not so outrageous is if you want to release something into the public domain--for there are jurisdictions where giving up all of your rights as an author is impossible.
* Estopple -- a quick search shows this USA law student
https://www.whitcomblawpc.com/additional-blogs-of-interest/e...
* Severability I thought we were talking about COPYRIGHT and Software License! apparently not?
"it was merely an example" , yes agree, it was merely an example "I want my license to say that I can murder someone" .. that was your example, right?
>If I as a developer want to license my code a certain way (and enforce that license in a certain way) what authority do these lawyers have to tell me I'm "stupid".
Are you willing to represent yourself in court? If the answer is no, then that's an admission you are stupider than a lawyer when it comes to legal matters. Nothing wrong with it, I have no problem admitting it myself. Let the programmers handle the programming and let the lawyers handle the law.
I'd skip the name calling.
You fail to understand how copyright works. If I'm the creator of the work, I have the copyright to it.
And yes, I'd be happy to represent myself if SFC came along and told me I could or couldn't do something with the code I wrote because that makes no sense. I can choose a license, I can dual license, I can re-license future releases and I can stop providing updates under any of those licenses.
So sure, if you and the SFC want to go after me for my code, go for it.
There seems to be a modern confusion that the folks NOT doing any of the work in writing code have all sorts of rights with respect to it (or time of a dev to fix their bugs). False.
There's no name calling, "stupid" is the exact word you used. I'm stupider than a lawyer when it comes to all the details of contract law, because I didn't study it as much as they do. If you aren't a lawyer, then you probably are too. Again, nothing wrong with admitting it. You and I can't know everything. It's actually arrogant and insulting to claim that you know more than a skilled lawyer or attorney just because you wrote some code, I would suggest not doing that.
>There seems to be a modern confusion that the folks NOT doing any of the work in writing code have all sorts of rights with respect to it (or time of a dev to fix their bugs). False.
I'm sorry but this makes no sense, it's weird how often I see this sentiment in open source. If you hired a lawyer to represent you and give you legal advice and defend you and court (which is multiple full time jobs) then you're paying them to do a job for you. You're not giving any of your rights away. You don't have to choose to hire SF Conservancy, you can hire another firm.
> If I'm the creator of the work, I have the copyright to it.
Not necessarily. For example, work for hire, or copyright being assigned to the employer. Or maybe the work itself isn't copyrightable in the first place. There's even a fun provision where US government work doesn't have any copyright in the first place! You might also have transferred the copyright of your work after you created it in a way which doesn't give you any retained rights.
in the USA there is strong copyright for the author of the work in question. Work-for-hire is well understood in Chapter 1 of any book on that topic. Secondly, a court appearance is not required to be an author and therefore copyright holder. Suggestions that "if you are not able to make a court appearance then XYZ and etc" .. is fallacious to start with, condescending and sounds a lot like an attorney arrogance. NOLO Press, read my lips
> has long been known to be nonsense
could any statement be less substantiated than pure FUD like that?
> others attempts to re-write the GPL
what does this mean? Is it a rewrite if the interpretation changes? How does one infer what the person granting this license "really meant"?
I think it's wrong not to get lawyers involved, because the laymen gets legalese interpretation wrong all the time (and it's an easy mistake to make - "doesn't match what developers understood the GPLv2 to mean at all").
GPL enforcement should be scary - banking on the folks who owns the copyright not enforcing it should not be possible. Selective enforcement should not be a thing either. This can only be possible if an overarching entity with funding does the enforcement.
Sure, the GPL deal was pretty simple. You can use the code, but if you change it, you need to make the code available with changes also under the GPL. This drove a fair bit of collaboration.
Each developer however could then make whatever they wanted with this code, and the GPL didn't control how you used the code in your project.
So you could make a car, and GPL software based control module could have a rev limiter in it. Others could also build cars using your code, BUT there was no requirement that USERS of your product be able to modify your product to for example get around the rev limiter or whatever.
This was battled out in part via the Tivo case, but was also just the normal readers understanding of the GPL.
This gave rise to the GPLv3 - which has the anti-tivoization clause in it. THAT version does say that you have to provide unlock codes etc etc. This ended up NOT being popular with the folks actually writing code.
What's happened though is that EFF / SFC have started to try and falsely claim that the GPLv2 is also like the GPLv3 - which is ironic because people DIDN'T want the GPLv3 over these issues in part.
https://jolts.world/index.php/jolts/article/download/149/269 for an article and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU for Linus's take on the GPLv3 in general.
The latest tactic, because they can't get developers to go down the (A)GPLv3 path is to try and create a right that would allow them to sue everyone as activists even though they didn't write any code themselves. That would then let them put their own interpretations of all of this. I think the SFC is pushing that but I don't follow closely enough.
What is remarkable is just how few developers have gotten on board with this group.
It is pretty clear from the history, that GPLv2 always required the ability of users to update the installed software.
https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-t... https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/mar/25/install-gplv2/
Um, that's the SFC version of GPLv2 intent. The actual folks using GPLv2 have a different view. This actually illustrates the issue that is going on with their attempt to claim GPL is not a copyright license (it has always been considered to be a copyright license) and their desire to change the intent. When you start having to twist and turn words and ideas this way you are in lawyer lala land.
"I give you source code, you give me your changes back; we’re even. … That’s my take on GPL version 2 and it’s that simple. … Version 3 extended that in ways that I personally am really uncomfortable with. Namely I give you source code, that means if you use that source code, you can’t use it on your device unless you follow my rules. And to me that’s a violation of everything version 2 stood for. And I understand why the FSF did it, because I know what the FSF wants, but to me it’s not the same license at all. So I was very upset, and made it very clear, and this was months before version 3 was actually published."
Please stop lying about what is "clear". The actual folks using these licenses disagree.
Here is Stallman on GPLv3
"There are several primary areas where version 3 is different from version 2. One is in regard to [T]ivoisation.
...
The Tivo includes some GPL-covered software. …[Y]ou can get the source code for that, as required by the GPL … and once you get the source code, you can modify it, and there are ways to install the modified software in your Tivo and if you do that, it won't run, period. Because, it does a check sum of the software and it verifies that it's a version from them and if it's your version, it won't run at all. So this is what we are forbidding, with the text we have written for GPL version three. It says that the source code they must give you includes whatever signature keys, or codes that are necessary to make your modified version run."
Who is Stallman you ask? The key guy behind GPLv2 (not the SFC BTW).
Nothing in GPLv2 requires giving changes back, only giving changes forward to the downstream users is required, not back upstream to the original developers. Giving code to users is pretty pointless if they can't install and run it, which is why both GPLv2 and GPLv3 require this. It is the culture of working upstream that leads to code flowing back to the original developers (obviously this is a very important thing to do, but it isn't required by the license). So I think Linus might need to write a new license to achieve what he actually wants from GPLv2. Note that any such license would discriminate against some classes of people who can't or mustn't communicate externally (those on a desert island, those in a totalitarian regime etc), so probably wouldn't be classed as "open source".
I expect that Stallman simply did not know the details of what Tivo was doing, or was worried about what they might do in the future. Their actions didn't include preventing you from running modified GPLed software (although that is a scary thing that is definitely possible and currently likely present in modern devices). They only prevented you from running their proprietary software on top of modified GPLed software. Stallman wanted to prevent that scenario with GPLv3, but the wording that finally made it into GPLv3 still allows what Tivo was doing.
https://events19.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017...
I assume that you're talking about this:
https://wptavern.com/software-freedom-conservancy-takes-on-v...
The GPL (version 2 or 3) says that if someone distributes a binary of a GPL-covered program, the person who receives the binary is entitled to receive source code. So the Conservancy brought an action on behalf of users: look, the text says you owe us source code. Please provide it.
Apparently you think that this is a "scary new approach". But the GPL was written to protect users.
Heads up - the GPL is a copyright license, not a contract with users.
Ironically, the SFC I think tried to file their case in state court. Copyright law is a federal matter.
I've no doubt they will drag this issue out in circles forever. But you pretty much know that if they aren't willing to litigate a copyright license in the normal venue - they've got a problem :)
This is what is so worrisome. Now we hear from the SFC that a GPL violation is NOT a copyright violation? This is a ridiculous and yes, extreme interpretation of what most developers would have understood.
Let's check back in on this in the future and see if they can even keep this in state court to try and avoid copyright law.
> Heads up - the GPL is a copyright license, not a contract with users.
A “license” (copyright or otherwise) is either a gratuitous license or a contract, and, while there are some important legal differences, gratuitous licenses are generally enforced under contract principles. So, generally, contract law applies to licenses.
Generally, the FSF and related groups have argued that the GPL is a contract license with mutual consideration, and I believe this has prevailed in some cases (it is possible for it to be true in some cases but not all, since contract depends on specific facts between the parties and not the written terms alone.)
> Ironically, the SFC I think tried to file their case in state court. Copyright law is a federal matter.
One principle of contract law is that the existence of a contract limits parties to action for breach if the terms are violated by the other party, not whatever action they would have on the underlying rights without the contract.
SFC didn't say that a GPL violation isn't a copyright violation, obviously it is. The Vizio lawsuit is simply an attempt at an alternative approach to achieving GPL compliance. There are a lot more ways to do that than just suing over copyright; for example you can get customs to seize the non-compliant devices as they enter the country, which Matthew Garret did to some Android tablets many years ago. The Vizio lawsuit is their first attempt at expanding the variety of compliance actions they can take. The Vizio lawsuit is kind of brilliant, since if they win it means that anyone can sue for GPL compliance, not just the copyright holder, which should make compliance much more common.
It appears to me that this post of yours involves lots of handwaving and appeals to history while the GPL continues to be ignored (look no further than e.g. Tesla).
Where is the hyperbolic let them leverage a very extreme position when some open source project asks for copyright assignment?
The issue the SFC has had is that folks like Linus and other developers are not interested AT ALL in their approach to enforcement or their interpretation of the GPL.
Since code talks and talk walks, they are not left with a ton. The Affero GPLv3 fell totally flat. GPLv3 pretty flat (Samba was a big adopter maybe? Not sure what growth they saw after that). Some of the SFC enforcement saw a big move / growth in MIT style licenses (no copyleft elements really) which is a big tragedy as well as a fracturing of licensing (another miss in my book).
So if they can get folks to assign them the copyright, that will let them start chasing again.
I'm not handwaving, I cited the article, the youtube video. This is pretty well known as a debate.
> Some of the SFC enforcement saw a big move / growth in MIT style licenses (no copyleft elements really) which is a big tragedy as well as a fracturing of licensing (another miss in my book).
indeed. Tragedy is the right word!
> If the GPL was not followed, the person who wrote the code could optionally take action. This actually works out pretty well, because folks who actually code tend NOT to file frivioulus type legal cases
That never made sense to me. AFAIK, in many GPL projects there are numerous copyright holders. Therefore, who is going to be the one to sue over the issues and optional seek damages. If all the SF Conservancy wants is the ability to sue violators, why aren't they paying someone to develop a few lines to the Linux kernel and every other project. Then, they can have standing to sue. Of course, it doesn't give them standing to license everyone else's code, but if they want to sue it works.
The SFC / related entities have worked with GPL developers to sue. All they need is a developer to let them act as their lawyer (for free).
This is what is remarkable. The SFC is so toxic in the open source developer community that despite their being a ton of a developers, not that many want to jump on the SFC train. So yes, this makes it hard for them.
Linus joked the title of a talk should be:
"Lawyers: poisonous to openness, poisonous to community, poisonous to projects".
So an approach for SFC might be to write code and start contributing. One challenge they might face is that a) they can't write code and/or b) getting developers to write for them that can do meaningful work may be difficult given their reputation and c) open source projects might choose not to accept their code because they know they'd be getting in bed with the SFC.
Realize the SFC views are very left field. They are now arguing in the Vizio case that the GPL is not a copyright license but some kind of contract with users. This is so backwards its crazy.
One solution, they write some very cool software everyone WANTS to use, then they could sue everyone. Downside, folks might stop using their software.
Developers have sued - that's mostly been fine I think. Harald Welte did a lot for the GPL. I liked most of his cases. He kept it focused on GPL license being available, and source code being available. He even won cases where links to source code in documentation were not allowed which was an interesting twist. But fundamentally his litigation followed Linus's and many other developers views, I give you my code, you give me yours, we are square. He did over 100 cases, and was successful every time that I know of.
I think the SFC is going to be on much thinner ground with their Vizio case but we will see.
They want violators to stop being violators and comply, by releasing source code when they fork a GPLed work.
Yes. And I want world peace. The question was not "what do these people want" but "who does what to make it happen".
They use legal action as a tool to make that happen; in many cases you never hear about it because the company quietly settles and releases source code.
So, way to dodge the question.
What I asked was " in many GPL projects there are numerous copyright holders. Therefore, who is going to be the one to sue over the issues and optional seek damages"
You responded with "they".
That's not addressing my point, which is asking about which actor is taking action, why they are and not another actor, etc.
Like, is someone who contributed 3 lines of code 7 years ago going to be actively suing people?
Yes, they could if they care too. Folks have done this with (relatively) small contributions.
Most companies are willing to share their code as GPL requires when asked.
What they aren't willing to do is provide authorization keys etc to hardware etc as they don't feel GPLv2 requires that. Because most GPLv2 devs ALSO don't think GPLv2 requires that not a lot of litigation there.
My guess is that if SFC does get a smaller kernel contributor to assign copyright the kernel devs may try and remove their contribution.
GPL is a license to use copyrighted software. Fundamentally it sits on top of copyright. It can never be stronger than that foundation. If you are using a few lines of code without a valid license thats a copyright breach. And you can be sued. But for what amount? How large damages can you claim for the illicit use of a few lines? Not a lot, likely.
> How large damages can you claim for the illicit use of a few lines? Not a lot, likely.
no one asked that question. GPL source code include some of the largest and most used software systems today.
Maybe I misunderstand the legal situation here, but if "they paying someone to develop a few lines to the Linux kernel and every other project", then they would only have standing to sue regarding those specific lines right? Unless they can get other contributors on board.
Standard IANAL, but I have to deal with copyright issues sometimes.
Yes, they would only have standing to sue based on those lines and any lines based on them as a derivative work. I'd imagine that if they showed they were good custodians of suing people (making it easy to get back in compliance as opposed to trying to milk people of money) they could get people to join them on a case-by-case basis.
Even without that, they don't have to prove the value of the code that was used. You can sue for copyright infringement based on a standard damage instead, which is assumed to be 10k-250k per violation.
> following their failures to force through the GPLv3 such as the EFF
Surely you mean GNU and not EFF.
> The SF Conservancy is now trying to SUE folks over using GPL code they had no hand in creating.
Do you have a source for this claim. Unless you just mean, that they are suing people on behalf of the creator of the code (But without creating it themselves), in which case I would say you are being extremely misleading.
Why would they have legal standing if they are not the copyright owner?
Certainly you can't do it against the will of the copyright owner, as the copyright owner is allowed to give new licenses to anyone they want under whatever terms they want.
Edit: i stand corrected.
This is described by post itself:
>The lawsuit we filed last year against Vizio takes an approach more appropriate for widely marketed and available consumer devices. Namely, the claim in Vizio is a contract claim for third-party beneficiary rights under the GPL, which will allow us (and all other customers who bought Vizio TV's) to receive the repair and modification instructions to the software more directly.
I don't think this is against the spirit of GPL, after all the focus of it is user freedom (though arguably GPLv2 ended up weaker than expected by FSF (TiVo hole), and then FSF strongly pushed to switch to GPLv3 while ignoring that some developers deliberately preferred v2 terms).
You are adopting the SFC's flawed analysis here.
The rights to the code belong to the AUTHOR of the code. Random users have no rights. The GPL is a grant to someone to use code without payment. Failure to follow the GPL means the AUTHORS rights are restored and license to use freely revoked. Again, users have no claim in this situation.
This SFC interpretation of third party rights is ridiculous. I hope some of the bigger hitters in this space come out with some statements on this.
As part of the GPL bargain, third parties have rights to the code too, just like second parties. And further downstream to everyone in the world.
No, this is false. I the distributor does not share their code to users, then their license from the AUTHOR is revocable by the copyright holder which is the author not the user.
They (SFC) sued Vizio
https://www.lawyer-monthly.com/2021/10/software-freedom-cons...
> Quick note that the SF Conservancy has been advancing a scary new approach to liability with GPL.
> Historically, the rights and responsibilities related to GPL comes from the copyright holder. If the GPL was not followed, the person who wrote the code could optionally take action. This actually works out pretty well, because folks who actually code tend NOT to file frivioulus type legal cases and things were reasonable.
If you write some code and release it under the GPL, and some company makes a device that includes a modified version of the software, and I buy the device but the company refuses to provide source for their modifications, why should my rights under the GPL depend on you as a developer (and copyright holder) suing the company? The GPL grants the user of the software specific rights and imposes equivalent obligations on whoever the user received the software from.
Whether the original developer is busy, uninterested, incapacitated, or even dead should have no impact on my rights as a user.
It may be true that a user is not (and perhaps even should not be) able to terminate the company's license to use, modify, and redistribute GPL software (I think that's debatable, since the GPL doesn't condition termination on the copyright owner taking action, but IANAL), but a user receiving the software should damn well be able to insist on receiving the modified source code, and in the face of a refusal to comply, a user should be able to sue. In fact, a class action suit on behalf of all affected users should be possible.
> Historically, the rights and responsibilities related to GPL comes from the copyright holder. If the GPL was not followed, the person who wrote the code could optionally take action. This actually works out pretty well, because folks who actually code tend NOT to file frivioulus type legal cases and things were reasonable.
It is an important principle of the legal system that parties subject to an externality must be powerless to do anything.
It depends on your viewpoint. GPL code authors rarely have the means to pursue legal action in response to license violations. As a result, GPL code is generally "stolen" with impunity.
If you really want to pursue violations you COULD partner with SFC - the busybox developer did this.
"As the ex-maintainer of busybox who STARTED those lawsuits in the first place and now HUGELY REGRETS ever having done so, I think I'm entitled to stop the lawsuits in whatever way I see fit. They never resulted in a single line of code added to the busybox repository. They HAVE resulted in more than one company exiting Linux development entirely and switching to non-Linux operating systems" - https://lwn.net/Articles/478361/
Here is the SFC's issue (came up when busybox replacements were discussed)
"What can we do? The real problem here is that the SFC's reliance on Busybox means that they're only able to target infringers who use that Busybox code. No significant kernel copyright holders have so far offered to allow the SFC to enforce their copyrights, with the result that enforcement action will grind to a halt as vendors move over to this Busybox replacement."
What's weird is despite NO significant copyright holder going along with SFC, they keep on marching forward as if they are backed by folks creating this code.
> They never resulted in a single line of code added to the busybox repository.
This is why you don't want lawyers calling the shots. Lawyers are looking to get paid, they'd rather get a cash settlement than get the code. If the lawyers are working for you, the copyright holder, then you can choose how to handle the situation. But if you sign the code over to the lawyers, it will no longer be your call.
The legal fees would add up to hundreds of thousands of dollars at a minimum. There just aren't many people / organizations who have that kind of money to spend just to get some open source code. Perhaps adding some language about legal fees would make the license more attractive to lawyers.
I own the copyright to some GPL code. Nothing major or very important, but it's out there nonetheless. If I find out that a company has taken my code and is violating the license, here are the two outcomes I'd want, in order of preference:
1) The violator release their code under the GPL, as the license said they should have.
2) If they refuse my request for #1, I want to forget the matter completely and put it behind me.
If a lawyer offers to represent me pro bono and help me get the code, with no talk of getting paid, I'd accept that offer. I wrote the code with no expectation of getting paid for it. If a lawyer wants donate his labor to the project as I donated mine, that's fine with me. Otherwise, the lawyer can crawl up his own ass and die there. I'd rather have scenario #2 than see a lawyer getting paid to sue somebody over my code.
> 2) If they refuse my request for #1, I want to forget the matter completely and put it behind me.
The likely result here is that the request will be refused (or just ignored) by default. Which means that there is no chance the license will ever be complied with, and users will never receive the modified code that they are entitled to under the GPL.
What's the point of licensing under the GPL if users never get the rights the GPL grants them?
My point is that the GPL should include a clause that if you sue for a breach of contract and win, then the violator of the license needs to pay your legal fees. This would (theoretically) allow a lawyer to sue with your permission and on your behalf and get paid while still forcing the infringer to respect the contract and release their code.
Why can they not defend software rights without copyright assignment? Surely they could pay the legal fees for a third party!
More and more foundations are inserting themselves into the process of "developing" software. Most of them have handsomely paid directors, who parade at conferences and talk about how awesome free software is.
The actual developers are supposed to be silent work horses and deliver everything for free. They are increasingly treated as cogs whose names are never mentioned.
You can agree to pay someone's legal fees but you can't generally file legal action on their behalf without their involvement. So they could potentially defend the software rights of people who are sufficiently easy to contact and willing to be at least nominally involved in legal proceedings.
They could just send you on email: XYZ is violating your license for project X in their project Y. Do you wish to take action?
and if there's no reply, what happens? You cannot assume the copyright holder is affirmative in this case, and file a suit.
If there’s no reply, there’d be no action.
Then you wouldn't pursue it.
How can we trust that the SF Conservancy, or its successors, won't do something untoward with the copyright assignment?
Looking at their list of sponsors doesn't exactly assuage any such doubts as to their trustworthiness either.
Prior instance of principal-agent problem in open-source, https://lunduke.substack.com/p/linux-foundation-spends-just-...
> The Linux Foundation — the organization that effectively controls Linux and employs the creator of Linux — only spends 3.4% [of $177M] on… Linux.
Is the proposed SFC copyright assignment intended to be temporary, e.g. could it be returned to the creator after a legal case is won? Why is it not sufficient for SFC to represent the copyright owner? Would joint/minority ownership be an option?
Leaving aside legal concerns, could code maintainers possibly lose the ability to steward their OSS community and set governance policy, after they surrender copyright?
You've linked to an article that is very clearly written in bad faith because it dislikes decisions being taken by the Linux organisation, not because they are actually dumb enough to think that a 3.4% line item for "linux kernel development" means that's all they spend on linux. Urgh.
I’m not sure what that tells you in the best case though.. They could surely break out a line for Kernel, but then does the investment in Automotive Grade Linux count? Or Civil Infrastructure Project? Or whatever that new OpenSSF project is? If they spend $10M on hosting OSSNA, should that count? Does money spent supporting K8s somehow detract from the kernel work?
It’s just such a weird flawed premise of a measure I can’t imagine how it’d be useful in determining anything about their motivations.
Could you recommend another article with a better breakdown of Linux spending by LF? It's not exactly a popular or risk-free topic for tech journalists, since many tech companies sponsor LF projects.
You can just look up the Linux Foundation's tax statements, they're publicly available.
Bryan Lunduke's recent writings are a bad source, they consist almost entirely of reactionary trolling. No idea why he gets any readership.
Linux Foundation's 2018 Form 990 (latest available): https://apps.irs.gov/pub/epostcard/cor/460503801_201812_990O...
Accessible via: https://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/detailsPage?ein=460503801&name=...
You can find other non-profits here: https://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/allSearch
What is reactionary trolling, why is it bad, and why are his articles an example of it?
It's the same kind of unsourced low-information content focused on personal grievances that you would find in an angry twitter or 4chan comment. It's just intellectually lazy and bad writing, this person is smart enough not to do it but does it anyway. If you need me to explain why this is undesirable, then we probably don't have much else to talk about.
> unsourced low-information content
Pot, meet kettle.
> From the lawyers I've spoken to about this, Linus's view on the GPL and the chosen enforcement strategy has long been known to be nonsense.
Unsourced. Low information content. You're throwing a whole lot of vague shade around in this thread. overboard2 asked you for an example, that was an opportunity to get specific, but your response is to make vague comparisons to 4chan?
>Pot, meet kettle.
No, this is incredibly wrong. The source here is me. You can choose to not believe me, but it's a source. I'm sorry but I just don't illegally carry a tape recorder into every meeting I go to just to prove something to a person on the internet. If you want me to elaborate then just ask a specific question, please stop with these "gotcha" tactics because they don't do anything. If you were referring to this person's writings, the article that was already posted is a source.
Even if you consider all the information in the linked article, the 3.4% is misleading. There's no indication that 100% of the linux-related work the Linux Foundation does falls into the 'linux kernel support' bucket.
More to the point, the foundation's web site doesn't say that its mission relates to Linux. It talks about software communities, open source etc.
It would be helpful for LF to provide a summary of Linux-related spending that is distinct from kernel development. Obviously not an easy line to draw, but better that LF draws the line than external observers.
They also run training courses and certificates through that that horrific EdX website… blecch
"Something untoward" is a bit vague. You have to specify who's being threatened at the very least.
* For project maintainers: The SF Conservancy can't prevent developers from working on their own project, because it is GPL-licensed and copyright holders can't retract GPL licensing once it's been given.
* For end-users: The GPL is a copyright license, not a EULA. So it only affects developers.
* For businesses that distribute software with changes: The risk of being sued by a copyright troll that buys the rights isn't an existential risk, because they can always keep using and fork an old GPL'd version.
> * For project maintainers: The SF Conservancy can't prevent developers from working on their own project, because it is GPL-licensed and copyright holders can't retract GPL licensing once it's been given.
No, they can't retract your permission to use your own software, but they can prevent you from going after infringing parties if SF Conservancy holds the copyright.
And at that point, why assign them copyright at all?
Because 99.9% of developers aren't willing to suffer the time and expense of investigating violations and enforcing their copyrights in federal court.
So why can't the SF Conservancy assist by making resources available to developers who are interested?
If pro bono legal representation were provided, I wager a number of developers would take up that offer.
I can't speak for them, but I can tell you that would add an enormous amount of overhead and risk for the lawyers involved. If you assign them your copyrights, their job is just to find GPL violations from the pool of projects they have the rights to and then initiate an action in court, which they do for a living. Without assignment, they can no longer proactively investigate with any reasonable chance of success, and they have to find a violation that's in a goldilocks zone; they need a GPL author whose rights have been violated and is willing to make a long term commitment to actively participating in litigation, that they know will communicate with them as needed, and who won't suddenly move to Nepal or be convinced by people online that they need to drop the suit or something.
If the developer owns the code: The violator may offer to make things right by releasing the code. The developer may choose to accept this offer, leaving the lawyer with little.
If the lawyer owns the code: The violator's offer to simply release the code is refused by the lawyers, who go for the jugular and try to bleed the violating company for as much money as they can.
>copyright holders can't retract GPL licensing once it's been given
This is only true for GPLv3, and not GPLv2.
A specialist lawyer paid to investigate the subject and write their legal opinion says GPLv2 can’t be revoked (section 7.4 GPLv2 Irrevocability): https://copyleft.org/guide/comprehensive-gpl-guidech8.html#x...
Of course, many other non-specialists have contrary opinions. If you have a link to a legal opinion to the contrary (by a lawyer skilled in the relevant areas), could you please share it?
No, I don't. I was just going off what I have read in the past. I didn't follow it too closely.
Do you have any reliable sources for that being the case? Everything I've read, pretty much ever, about the GPLv2 indicates that the version of code released under the GPLv2 is forever available under the GPLv2. You can change the license, but people are always free to use the last version that was released under GPLv2.
I don't know off the top of my head but searching for "rescinding the GPL" should turn some stuff up. It's at least a grey area.
So any Linux kernel contributor in the last 30 years can pull their license and force an immediate "emergency rewrite" of everything they've contributed? Since other Linux developers would no longer have a license to use it?
That seems unlikely, or somebody would do it just for the laughs. (I certainly would)
There were threats of it around the time the CoC was added.
That sounds like internet drama and not a serious threat. I think they're powerless to do anything.
Your heirs can always get it back in 35 years using copyright termination.
"... aren't providing the source or repair and modification information that the project's license requires ..."
I wasn't aware that open source requires you to provide "repair and modification information". I thought it just requires you to make source-code modified by you publicly available. Can anyone elaborate on what the "repair information" in particular refers to?
There are more requirements than just making the source available. GPLv3 has an anti-Tivoization clause that forbids using GPLv3 code in a product in a way that the GPLv3 code is not able to be replaced by the end user.
And there are also requirements that you distribute additionaal "Installation Information" alongside the code itself. If you have to release your code under GPL, you must make it possible for end users to build & run your code. Can't hide behind proprietary in-house compilers, build systems, or build time dependencies on proprietary data to prevent end users making use of the GPL'd source.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#InstInfo
"GPLv3 explicitly requires redistribution to include the full necessary “Installation Information.” GPLv2 doesn't use that term, but it does require redistribution to include scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable with the complete and corresponding source code. This covers part, but not all, of what GPLv3 calls “Installation Information.” Thus, GPLv3's requirement about installation information is stronger."
The link in that same paragraph has some more info. ( https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html )
It seems to me like it's a rhetorical framing of GPL rights to place them within the "right to repair" movement. (Think Richard Stallman wanting to fix issues with the printer at MIT, but unable to because the driver was closed-source proprietary code)
The right to repair software on devices is just as if not more important than the right to repair devices themselves. Indeed, it is often the software on the devices that blocks repairing devices themselves. Look up the stuff about American farmers using hacking tools to be able to fix their tractors full of sophisticated electronics. Or Apple requiring pairing between parts of the iPhone.
SF = Software Freedom != San Francisco
I wonder if this is a risk for Conservancy if some other party claims that some piece of GPLed software violates its rights somehow. Would other parties name Conservancy as a defendant in lawsuits if they learn that copyrights have been assigned to it? (Maybe there's some remedy that plaintiffs would sometimes like to try to get that only the copyright holder can provide, like assigning copyright to a plaintiff in a settlement?)
I don't believe that owning the copyright to software can ever be infringing, at least in the US (disclaimer: not a lawyer, feel free to correct). It is generally the act of distributing said software that falls into some sort of legal violation.
I agree, but I don't immediately understand if that would necessarily always save Conservancy from being drawn into lawsuits about other matters.
Another direct attack against the FSF, whow.
SPONSORS: GOOGLE, RED HAT
Hahahahahahaaaaa. Hoooo.
Google tends to be very active in the open source world, and follow all their rules.
They might be evil, but they've never been evil in the way that would make me worry about them sponsoring this.
thanks