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

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

#131

Post by pabs3 » Tue, May 03, 2022, 4:35 AM UTC

onphonenow wrote: post #124

not2b wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 didn't say that a GPL violation isn't a copyright violation, obviously it is. The Vizio lawsuit is simply an attempt at an alternative approach to achieving GPL compliance. There are a lot more ways to do that than just suing over copyright; for example you can get customs to seize the non-compliant devices as they enter the country, which Matthew Garret did to some Android tablets many years ago. The Vizio lawsuit is their first attempt at expanding the variety of compliance actions they can take. The Vizio lawsuit is kind of brilliant, since if they win it means that anyone can sue for GPL compliance, not just the copyright holder, which should make compliance much more common.

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

#132

Post by pabs3 » Tue, May 03, 2022, 4:39 AM UTC

onphonenow wrote: post #122

garaetjjte wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 b…

As part of the GPL bargain, third parties have rights to the code too, just like second parties. And further downstream to everyone in the world.

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

#133

Post by dragonwriter » Tue, May 03, 2022, 4:44 AM UTC

onphonenow wrote: post #124

not2b wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

A “license” (copyright or otherwise) is either a gratuitous license or a contract, and, while there are some important legal differences, gratuitous licenses are generally enforced under contract principles. So, generally, contract law applies to licenses.

Generally, the FSF and related groups have argued that the GPL is a contract license with mutual consideration, and I believe this has prevailed in some cases (it is possible for it to be true in some cases but not all, since contract depends on specific facts between the parties and not the written terms alone.)

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

One principle of contract law is that the existence of a contract limits parties to action for breach if the terms are violated by the other party, not whatever action they would have on the underlying rights without the contract.

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

#134

Post by pabs3 » Tue, May 03, 2022, 4:46 AM UTC

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?

The right to repair software on devices is just as if not more important than the right to repair devices themselves. Indeed, it is often the software on the devices that blocks repairing devices themselves. Look up the stuff about American farmers using hacking tools to be able to fix their tractors full of sophisticated electronics. Or Apple requiring pairing between parts of the iPhone.

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

#135

Post by HWR_14 » Tue, May 03, 2022, 4:55 AM UTC

robonerd wrote: post #75

HWR_14 wrote: post #67

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 exact same authority developers have when they tell their clients that they cannot run a 1,000,000 person site off the phone they forget to charge sometimes. Or even a designer telling a client their color scheme is poor (it clashes, isn't color-blin…

> They aren't saying Linus's goals are stupid. They're saying the methods he's using to achieve the goals are. Which makes sense. So if lawyers were in charge and rampaged around suing the shit out of every company that made a mistake when using Linux, that would better suit Linus's goals? Only Linus can speak to Linus's goals, but I doubt this is what Linus really wants.

> if lawyers were in charge and rampaged around suing the shit out of every company that made a mistake when using Linux, that would better suit Linus's goals?

No. But if they went around sending demand letters that were complied with (because they came from a reputable law firm) by getting the code open sourced it would. I'm not saying these lawyers should be listened to. I'm saying some lawyers should. And excluding all lawyers is as dumb as trying to get funded for your FaceBook clone saying you only need the money to "hire a programmer" would be.

> Only Linus can speak to Linus's goals

This is nonsense. I might be wrong but I can certainly speak to his goals. We can even discuss what we think they are.

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

#136

Post by HWR_14 » Tue, May 03, 2022, 4:59 AM UTC

not2b wrote: post #87

HWR_14 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 That never made sense to me. AFAIK, in many GPL projects there are numerous copyright holders. Therefore, who is going to be the one to sue over the issues and optional seek damages. If all the SF Conservancy wants…

They want violators to stop being violators and comply, by releasing source code when they fork a GPLed work.

Yes. And I want world peace. The question was not "what do these people want" but "who does what to make it happen".

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

#137

Post by rurban » Tue, May 03, 2022, 4:59 AM UTC

Another direct attack against the FSF, whow.

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

#138

Post by HWR_14 » Tue, May 03, 2022, 5:04 AM UTC

im3w1l wrote: post #115

mistrial9 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Standard IANAL, but I have to deal with copyright issues sometimes.

Yes, they would only have standing to sue based on those lines and any lines based on them as a derivative work. I'd imagine that if they showed they were good custodians of suing people (making it easy to get back in compliance as opposed to trying to milk people of money) they could get people to join them on a case-by-case basis.

Even without that, they don't have to prove the value of the code that was used. You can sue for copyright infringement based on a standard damage instead, which is assumed to be 10k-250k per violation.

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

#139

Post by webmaven » Tue, May 03, 2022, 5:41 AM UTC

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…

> 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.

If you write some code and release it under the GPL, and some company makes a device that includes a modified version of the software, and I buy the device but the company refuses to provide source for their modifications, why should my rights under the GPL depend on you as a developer (and copyright holder) suing the company? The GPL grants the user of the software specific rights and imposes equivalent obligations on whoever the user received the software from.

Whether the original developer is busy, uninterested, incapacitated, or even dead should have no impact on my rights as a user.

It may be true that a user is not (and perhaps even should not be) able to terminate the company's license to use, modify, and redistribute GPL software (I think that's debatable, since the GPL doesn't condition termination on the copyright owner taking action, but IANAL), but a user receiving the software should damn well be able to insist on receiving the modified source code, and in the face of a refusal to comply, a user should be able to sue. In fact, a class action suit on behalf of all affected users should be possible.

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

#140

Post by rasz » Tue, May 03, 2022, 5:43 AM UTC

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?

While not doing any software development, sounds great to me.