SF Conservancy now accepting copyright assignment for any GPL software • Hacker News Board

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

#111

Post by akerl_ » Tue, May 03, 2022, 1:48 AM UTC

lakecresva wrote: post #44

blagie wrote: post #26

Legally, this is a screw. DO NOT sign this form. 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 m…

The relicensing language is not entirely unreasonable in my opinion. There are huge portions of open source copyright thinking that have never actually been analyzed by an appellate court, and none of it has ever been seriously examined by the Supreme Court. In the event that some core component(s) of your favorite flavor of the GPL are found to be unsound or some other legal catastrophe happens, they need the abilit…

I’m not sure I’m grokking this. As you note, the hard part about changing license is if the copyright for a project is jointly held by a large number of contributors.

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.

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

#112

Post by mistrial9 » Tue, May 03, 2022, 1:52 AM UTC

jcranmer wrote: post #102

mistrial9 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!). T…

* Estopple -- a quick search shows this USA law student

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?

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

#113

Post by blagie » Tue, May 03, 2022, 1:53 AM UTC

mistrial9 wrote: post #104

mistrial9 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

You're the one confused here. You're making a standard programmer bug of reading IRS pages like computer code.

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.

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

#114

Post by panny » Tue, May 03, 2022, 2:05 AM UTC

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 care if he makes money. The important part of GP's post was,

>they explicitly supported the attempt to eject him from the Free Software Foundation on the basis of trumped up allegations

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

#115

Post by im3w1l » Tue, May 03, 2022, 2:11 AM UTC

mistrial9 wrote: post #97

im3w1l wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GPL is a license to use copyrighted software. Fundamentally it sits on top of copyright. It can never be stronger than that foundation. If you are using a few lines of code without a valid license thats a copyright breach. And you can be sued. But for what amount? How large damages can you claim for the illicit use of a few lines? Not a lot, likely.

> How large damages can you claim for the illicit use of a few lines? Not a lot, likely. no one asked that question. GPL source code include some of the largest and most used software systems today.

Maybe I misunderstand the legal situation here, but if "they paying someone to develop a few lines to the Linux kernel and every other project", then they would only have standing to sue regarding those specific lines right? Unless they can get other contributors on board.

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

#116

Post by lakecresva » Tue, May 03, 2022, 2:21 AM UTC

blagie wrote: post #96

lakecresva wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The relicensing language is not entirely unreasonable in my opinion. There are huge portions of open source copyright thinking that have never actually been analyzed by an appellate court, and none of it has ever been seriously examined by the Supreme Court. In the event that some core component(s) of your favorite flavor of the GPL are found to be unsound or some other legal catastrophe happens, they need the abilit…

I think it is almost guaranteed that they will try to relicense my work for some nefarious purpose at some point in their history. I think it is highly unlikely to happen while their current leadership is in place. 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, th…

What you seem to want is pro bono representation, which is just not what they're offering. It's apples to oranges. Achieving something that approaches your idea of fairness would require negotiation and the maintenance of an ongoing legally significant relationship. I don't know much about the politics of the SF Conservancy, but the language in the contract they're offering does not jump out as especially unfair or extreme. Accounting for details like successors in interest is how lawyers write tight contracts.

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

#117

Post by robonerd » Tue, May 03, 2022, 2:26 AM UTC

simulate-me wrote: post #109

robonerd wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I own the copyright to some GPL code. Nothing major or very important, but it's out there nonetheless. If I find out that a company has taken my code and is violating the license, here are the two outcomes I'd want, in order of preference:

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.

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

#118

Post by lakecresva » Tue, May 03, 2022, 2:28 AM UTC

akerl_ wrote: post #111

lakecresva wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The relicensing language is not entirely unreasonable in my opinion. There are huge portions of open source copyright thinking that have never actually been analyzed by an appellate court, and none of it has ever been seriously examined by the Supreme Court. In the event that some core component(s) of your favorite flavor of the GPL are found to be unsound or some other legal catastrophe happens, they need the abilit…

I’m not sure I’m grokking this. As you note, the hard part about changing license is if the copyright for a project is jointly held by a large number of contributors. 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 lice…

I meant each author who accepts their offer and assigns their copyrights, not each contributor to an individual project.

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

#119

Post by onphonenow » Tue, May 03, 2022, 2:35 AM UTC

seoaeu wrote: post #70

onphonenow wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm just curious here. 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". 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…

> 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". 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…

This type of positioning by the SFC is horrendous.

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.

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

#120

Post by simulate-me » Tue, May 03, 2022, 2:35 AM UTC

robonerd wrote: post #117

simulate-me wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I own the copyright to some GPL code. Nothing major or very important, but it's out there nonetheless. If I find out that a company has taken my code and is violating the license, here are the two outcomes I'd want, in order of preference: 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 behin…

My point is that the GPL should include a clause that if you sue for a breach of contract and win, then the violator of the license needs to pay your legal fees. This would (theoretically) allow a lawyer to sue with your permission and on your behalf and get paid while still forcing the infringer to respect the contract and release their code.