Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

LLVM relicensing update and call for help

blog.llvm.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 198 posts

Re: LLVM relicensing update and call for help

#11

Post by brnt »

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #5

> The copyright owner can be either an individual, for example the person who wrote the code originally; or a company, for example a company that employed the person who wrote the code. Here, there be dragonnes... I can easily see an IC agreeing to a relicensing, thinking they had full rights, but their employer, at the time, had a "shower clause," and trying to (and maybe succeeding in) getting that section of licen…

> The copyright owner can be either an individual, for example the person who wrote the code originally; or a company, for example a company that employed the person who wrote the code.

Here be dragons indeed. This is flat out incorrect. In quite some jurisdictions, copyright is a nontransferable inalienable right any authors gains upon writing something, in perpetuity (can't even be transferred after death). Others, such as employers, may merely license is, sometimes exclusively.

Re: LLVM relicensing update and call for help

#12

Post by valleyer »

brnt wrote: post #11
ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #5

> The copyright owner can be either an individual, for example the person who wrote the code originally; or a company, for example a company that employed the person who wrote the code. Here, there be dragonnes... I can easily see an IC agreeing to a relicensing, thinking they had full rights, but their employer, at the time, had a "shower clause," and trying to (and maybe succeeding in) getting that section of licen…

> The copyright owner can be either an individual, for example the person who wrote the code originally; or a company, for example a company that employed the person who wrote the code. Here be dragons indeed. This is flat out incorrect. In quite some jurisdictions, copyright is a nontransferable inalienable right any authors gains upon writing something, in perpetuity (can't even be transferred after death). Others,…

I'm sure you're right that that's how it works in some jurisdictions.

But it's not how it works in the US, which is where the person responding to you lives. In the US, copyright is transferrable, and "works for hire" are initially owned by the employer.

Either way, saying that the quoted bit is "flat out incorrect" seems like an overstep, in my opinion.

Re: LLVM relicensing update and call for help

#13

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg »

brnt wrote: post #11
ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #5

> The copyright owner can be either an individual, for example the person who wrote the code originally; or a company, for example a company that employed the person who wrote the code. Here, there be dragonnes... I can easily see an IC agreeing to a relicensing, thinking they had full rights, but their employer, at the time, had a "shower clause," and trying to (and maybe succeeding in) getting that section of licen…

> The copyright owner can be either an individual, for example the person who wrote the code originally; or a company, for example a company that employed the person who wrote the code. Here be dragons indeed. This is flat out incorrect. In quite some jurisdictions, copyright is a nontransferable inalienable right any authors gains upon writing something, in perpetuity (can't even be transferred after death). Others,…

Is the distinction here really germane? If someone else holds an exclusive, transferrable, perpetual, sublicensable license to a work you produced, that's more or less the same as holding the copyright from LLVM's perspective. Of course all this only matters if they encounter a situation where it is difficult to determine the rightsholder, and they are not able to obtain agreement from all potential holders, and there ends up being a dispute.

Re: LLVM relicensing update and call for help

#14

Post by brnt »

valleyer wrote: post #12
brnt wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The copyright owner can be either an individual, for example the person who wrote the code originally; or a company, for example a company that employed the person who wrote the code. Here be dragons indeed. This is flat out incorrect. In quite some jurisdictions, copyright is a nontransferable inalienable right any authors gains upon writing something, in perpetuity (can't even be transferred after death). Others,…

I'm sure you're right that that's how it works in some jurisdictions. But it's not how it works in the US, which is where the person responding to you lives. In the US, copyright is transferrable, and "works for hire" are initially owned by the employer. Either way, saying that the quoted bit is "flat out incorrect" seems like an overstep, in my opinion.

LLVM has contributors from all over the world, hence it is relevant. It is certainly not an overstep. I work on a project with contributors from a few countries and this proved a major blocker for changing our license (not impossible, but much work!)

Re: LLVM relicensing update and call for help

#15

Post by brnt »

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #13
brnt wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The copyright owner can be either an individual, for example the person who wrote the code originally; or a company, for example a company that employed the person who wrote the code. Here be dragons indeed. This is flat out incorrect. In quite some jurisdictions, copyright is a nontransferable inalienable right any authors gains upon writing something, in perpetuity (can't even be transferred after death). Others,…

Is the distinction here really germane? If someone else holds an exclusive, transferrable, perpetual, sublicensable license to a work you produced, that's more or less the same as holding the copyright from LLVM's perspective. Of course all this only matters if they encounter a situation where it is difficult to determine the rightsholder, and they are not able to obtain agreement from all potential holders, and ther…

In such jurisdiction, copyright attributions/assignments are simply not legally possible. We've had to scrap the one in place for on of our projects.

The type of contract you should have contributors from such jurisdictions sign is a license to use. If you haven't, getting 'permission' is meaningless; the author possibly (in my experience: probably) doesn't know they're actually not legally able to agree to such a change.

Re: LLVM relicensing update and call for help

#20

Post by bombcar »

smitop wrote: post #9
throwaway81523 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wikipedia changed its license around 10 years ago, I think.

Wikipedia was licensed under GFDL 1.2 or later, so relicensed by convincing the FSF to release an updated version of the GFDL (version 1.3) that adds a very narrowly worded clause allowing relicensing that pretty much only applied to Wikipedia.

Which does point to the hidden danger of the FSF licenses when “any later version” exists.
Post reply on HN