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

101–110 of 161 posts

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

#101

Post by dragonwriter »

jcranmer wrote: post #38
onphonenow wrote: post #16

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 reasonabl…

> "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 Thi…

> 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.

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

#102

Post by jcranmer »

mistrial9 wrote: post #83
jcranmer wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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.

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

#103

Post by cmeacham98 »

mistrial9 wrote: post #99
cmeacham98 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

start here? https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/private-foundation...

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.

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

#104

Post by mistrial9 »

mistrial9 wrote: post #91
lokar wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

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

#105

Post by swores »

paulv wrote: post #85
wrycoder wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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

#106

Post by simfree »

smitop wrote: post #92
paulv wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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

#107

Post by mistrial9 »

blagie wrote: post #100
mistrial9 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

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 Found…

> What happened was likely illegal, but in the grey zone.

this

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

#108

Post by MichaelBurge »

charcircuit wrote: post #30
MichaelBurge wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

#109

Post by simulate-me »

robonerd wrote: post #66
onphonenow wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 exiti…

> 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.

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

#110

Post by bawolff »

LightHugger wrote: post #56
bawolff wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.
Post reply on HN