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

SF Conservancy now accepting copyright assignment for any GPL software

sfconservancy.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 161 posts

Re: SF Conservancy now accepting copyright assignment for any GPL software

#11

Post by dolni »

MichaelBurge wrote: post #9
hmmmmhmm wrote: post #6

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.

"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 di…

> * 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?

Re: SF Conservancy now accepting copyright assignment for any GPL software

#12

Post by astrange »

hmmmmhmm wrote: post #6

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.

Your heirs can always get it back in 35 years using copyright termination.

Re: SF Conservancy now accepting copyright assignment for any GPL software

#13

Post by skrtskrt »

walterbell wrote: post #8
hmmmmhmm wrote: post #6

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 s…

They also run training courses and certificates through that that horrific EdX website… blecch

Re: SF Conservancy now accepting copyright assignment for any GPL software

#14

Post by swores »

walterbell wrote: post #8
hmmmmhmm wrote: post #6

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 s…

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.

Re: SF Conservancy now accepting copyright assignment for any GPL software

#15

Post by garlic100 »

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.

Re: SF Conservancy now accepting copyright assignment for any GPL software

#16

Post by onphonenow »

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.

Re: SF Conservancy now accepting copyright assignment for any GPL software

#17

Post by lakecresva »

dolni wrote: post #11
MichaelBurge wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 di…

> * 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…

Because 99.9% of developers aren't willing to suffer the time and expense of investigating violations and enforcing their copyrights in federal court.

Re: SF Conservancy now accepting copyright assignment for any GPL software

#18

Post by rahimnathwani »

walterbell wrote: post #8
hmmmmhmm wrote: post #6

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 s…

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.

Re: SF Conservancy now accepting copyright assignment for any GPL software

#19

Post by schoen »

cmeacham98 wrote: post #5
schoen wrote: post #3

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…

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.

Re: SF Conservancy now accepting copyright assignment for any GPL software

#20

Post by initplus »

galaxyLogic wrote: post #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?

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."

Post reply on HN