SF Conservancy now accepting copyright assignment for any GPL software
sfconservancy.org
sfconservancy.org
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)
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?
https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/tools-resources/unrelate...
Be it a T-shirt, a building, or IP, if a nonprofit owns it they can sell or license it.
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-...
"In order to raise money to protect free software we have to transfer this one license to Oracle"
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.
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.
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
When you make the claim, you are generally expected to provide proof, yes that's how it works.
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).
this
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?
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 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.
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.
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.
That’s just not the case.
Jointly owning the copyright is different from them owning half and you owning half.
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.
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.
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.
>they explicitly supported the attempt to eject him from the Free Software Foundation on the basis of trumped up allegations
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-t... https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/mar/25/install-gplv2/
"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).
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...
Surely you mean GNU and not EFF.
Where is the hyperbolic let them leverage a very extreme position when some open source project asks for copyright assignment?
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.
indeed. Tragedy is the right word!
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.
could any statement be less substantiated than pure FUD like that?
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.
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.
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.
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.
>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.
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.
* 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.
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?
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.
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.
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 :)
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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!)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
>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).
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.
https://www.lawyer-monthly.com/2021/10/software-freedom-cons...
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.
no one asked that question. GPL source code include some of the largest and most used software systems today.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It is an important principle of the legal system that parties subject to an externality must be powerless to do anything.
> 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.
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.
Looking at their list of sponsors doesn't exactly assuage any such doubts as to their trustworthiness either.
> 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?
Bryan Lunduke's recent writings are a bad source, they consist almost entirely of reactionary trolling. No idea why he gets any readership.
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
* 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.
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?
If pro bono legal representation were provided, I wager a number of developers would take up that offer.
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.
This is only true for GPLv3, and not GPLv2.
That seems unlikely, or somebody would do it just for the laughs. (I certainly would)
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?
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?
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)
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."
Hahahahahahaaaaa. Hoooo.
They might be evil, but they've never been evil in the way that would make me worry about them sponsoring this.