SF Conservancy now accepting copyright assignment for any GPL software
1–10 of 161 posts
Re: SF Conservancy now accepting copyright assignment for any GPL software
#2SF = Software Freedom != San Francisco
Re: SF Conservancy now accepting copyright assignment for any GPL software
#3I 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?)
Re: SF Conservancy now accepting copyright assignment for any GPL software
#4"... 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?
Re: SF Conservancy now accepting copyright assignment for any GPL software
#5I 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…
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.
Re: SF Conservancy now accepting copyright assignment for any GPL software
#6How 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.
Re: SF Conservancy now accepting copyright assignment for any GPL software
#7"... 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?
[deleted]
Re: SF Conservancy now accepting copyright assignment for any GPL software
#8How 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?
Re: SF Conservancy now accepting copyright assignment for any GPL software
#9How 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.
"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.
Re: SF Conservancy now accepting copyright assignment for any GPL software
#10"... 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?
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)