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

121–130 of 161 posts

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

#121

Post by onphonenow »

jcranmer wrote: post #63
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". 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…

Goodness.

Look at the GPLv2 (written by a CODER).

Compare it to the GPLv3 (written by these expert lawyers).

Which is clearer, more understandable, just more rational?

Which is the license that has the larger adoption on more code used by more folks.

And despite all the claims here, intent is going to matter. When you sue Linus and say the GPL doesn't mean what he and everyone else actually creating this code think it means, then he's going to say, this was our intent. And you are going to have a VERY tall mountain to climb.

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

#122

Post by onphonenow »

garaetjjte wrote: post #65
bawolff wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The SF Conservancy is now trying to SUE folks over using GPL code they had no hand in creating. Do you have a source for this claim. Unless you just mean, that they are suing people on behalf of the creator of the code (But without creating it themselves), in which case I would say you are being extremely misleading. Why would they have legal standing if they are not the copyright owner? Certainly you can't do it a…

This is described by post itself: >The lawsuit we filed last year against Vizio takes an approach more appropriate for widely marketed and available consumer devices. Namely, the claim in Vizio is a contract claim for third-party beneficiary rights under the GPL, which will allow us (and all other customers who bought Vizio TV's) to receive the repair and modification instructions to the software more directly. I don…

You are adopting the SFC's flawed analysis here.

The rights to the code belong to the AUTHOR of the code. Random users have no rights. The GPL is a grant to someone to use code without payment. Failure to follow the GPL means the AUTHORS rights are restored and license to use freely revoked. Again, users have no claim in this situation.

This SFC interpretation of third party rights is ridiculous. I hope some of the bigger hitters in this space come out with some statements on this.

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

#123

Post by mistrial9 »

blagie wrote: post #113
mistrial9 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> look at the sale of edX to 2U

yes, that would be interesting to see the details, like the specific tax+governance documents for whatever specifically got those assets from the non-profit, as you point out. IANL

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

#124

Post by onphonenow »

not2b wrote: post #82
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 assume that you're talking about this: https://wptavern.com/software-freedom-conservancy-takes-on-v... The GPL (version 2 or 3) says that if someone distributes a binary of a GPL-covered program, the person who receives the binary is entitled to receive source code. So the Conservancy brought an action on behalf of users: look, the text says you owe us source code. Please provide it. Apparently you think that this…

Heads up - the GPL is a copyright license, not a contract with users.

Ironically, the SFC I think tried to file their case in state court. Copyright law is a federal matter.

I've no doubt they will drag this issue out in circles forever. But you pretty much know that if they aren't willing to litigate a copyright license in the normal venue - they've got a problem :)

This is what is so worrisome. Now we hear from the SFC that a GPL violation is NOT a copyright violation? This is a ridiculous and yes, extreme interpretation of what most developers would have understood.

Let's check back in on this in the future and see if they can even keep this in state court to try and avoid copyright law.

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

#125

Post by jcranmer »

onphonenow wrote: post #121
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…

Goodness. Look at the GPLv2 (written by a CODER). Compare it to the GPLv3 (written by these expert lawyers). Which is clearer, more understandable, just more rational? Which is the license that has the larger adoption on more code used by more folks. And despite all the claims here, intent is going to matter. When you sue Linus and say the GPL doesn't mean what he and everyone else actually creating this code think i…

> Which is clearer, more understandable, just more rational?

Honestly, just quickly looking through the two licenses to answer a simple question... GPLv3 [1].

From a legal perspective, "simpler" documents tend to be less clear, because a lot more of the interpretation will rely on common law jurisprudence [2], and the "common" here doesn't mean "everybody agrees"--it in fact means "every jurisdiction has its own set of rules that may or may not translate directly in other jurisdiction."

> And despite all the claims here, intent is going to matter. When you sue Linus and say the GPL doesn't mean what he and everyone else actually creating this code think it means, then he's going to say, this was our intent. And you are going to have a VERY tall mountain to climb.

Given that a software license is close to a take-it-or-leave-it contract, ambiguous interpretations are generally going to be interpreted in favor of the person who has the take-it-or-leave-it option--which in this case is not going to be Linus and co.

[1] The criteria I used: "how do patents interact with this license." From what I can tell, GPLv2 technically doesn't actually contain a clause where the licensor grants the licensee any and all necessary patents--it instead talks about what happens if the code violates a third party's patent. Admittedly, reading the GPLv2 to not include a patent license grant is somewhat of a malicious reading, but the GPLv3's verbiage here is pretty explicit: "Each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free patent license under the contributor's essential patent claims, to make, use, sell, offer for sale, import and otherwise run, modify and propagate the contents of its contributor version."

[2] I'm limiting my analysis here to US jurisdictions, because that's what I know.

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

#126

Post by LightHugger »

bawolff wrote: post #110
LightHugger wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

presumably that is why he listed both options separately.

"For instance" means an example, not an alternative.

Ah, i see what you mean now. I read it the other way initially.

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

#127

Post by charcircuit »

robocat wrote: post #64
charcircuit wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>copyright holders can't retract GPL licensing once it's been given This is only true for GPLv3, and not GPLv2.

A specialist lawyer paid to investigate the subject and write their legal opinion says GPLv2 can’t be revoked (section 7.4 GPLv2 Irrevocability): https://copyleft.org/guide/comprehensive-gpl-guidech8.html#x... Of course, many other non-specialists have contrary opinions. If you have a link to a legal opinion to the contrary (by a lawyer skilled in the relevant areas), could you please share it?

No, I don't. I was just going off what I have read in the past. I didn't follow it too closely.

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

#128

Post by wumpus »

simfree wrote: post #106
smitop wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Mid-career developer in the US government, yes.

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

#129

Post by pwdisswordfish9 »

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…

> 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.

It is an important principle of the legal system that parties subject to an externality must be powerless to do anything.

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

#130

Post by pabs3 »

onphonenow wrote: post #39
chii wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> others attempts to re-write the GPL what does this mean? Is it a rewrite if the interpretation changes? How does one infer what the person granting this license "really meant"? I think it's wrong not to get lawyers involved, because the laymen gets legalese interpretation wrong all the time (and it's an easy mistake to make - "doesn't match what developers understood the GPLv2 to mean at all"). GPL enforcement shou…

Sure, the GPL deal was pretty simple. You can use the code, but if you change it, you need to make the code available with changes also under the GPL. This drove a fair bit of collaboration. Each developer however could then make whatever they wanted with this code, and the GPL didn't control how you used the code in your project. So you could make a car, and GPL software based control module could have a rev limiter…

It is pretty clear from the history, that GPLv2 always required the ability of users to update the installed software.

https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-t... https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/mar/25/install-gplv2/

Post reply on HN