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

141–150 of 161 posts

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

#141

Post by webmaven »

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…

> 2) If they refuse my request for #1, I want to forget the matter completely and put it behind me.

The likely result here is that the request will be refused (or just ignored) by default. Which means that there is no chance the license will ever be complied with, and users will never receive the modified code that they are entitled to under the GPL.

What's the point of licensing under the GPL if users never get the rights the GPL grants them?

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

#142

Post by dhzhzjsbevs »

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…

> Contacting all those contributors to get them to agree to a license change is a large undertaking.

With the right licensing language it doesn't need to be.

Authors must maintain contactability through emails listed in source / git commits, if authors fail to respond to pings about changes to licensing in a timely manner they forfeit their rights.

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

#143

Post by seoaeu »

onphonenow wrote: post #119
seoaeu wrote: post #70

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". 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 key…

You (presumably) live in a country with rule-of-law. That means that if you are involved in a court case related to your GPL code, the legal system in your country will determine the outcome. Refusing to consult with lawyer in advance about what the outcome of such a legal proceeding will probably be, isn't going to improve your odds!

I have no clue whether whatever SFC has been claiming about the legal status of GPL is true or not (quite frankly, I haven't bothered even looking at what they're saying). But if the legal system's interpretation of GPLv2 doesn't match what most authors want or agree to, that sounds like precisely the kind of thing authors should want a lawyer to tell them, so they have a chance to switch to a different license.

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

#144

Post by seoaeu »

Benjamin_Dobell wrote: post #95
seoaeu wrote: post #70

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". 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…

> 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’ That's not a reasonable comparison. 1. Licenses are fundamentally open to interpretation, programming languages have specifications. Yes, the specifications and compiler aren't perfect, however, code is designed to be specific. Legal agreements on the other…

There's lots of ways that licenses can be objectively wrong. They can contain content that renders them invalid, or wording that legally means something different from what the author intended. A lawyer has the "right" to point out such flaws, and refusing to consult a lawyer won't make those flaws go away.

You are of course right about copyright holders being able to chose whether to enforce their license (at least if they were smart enough to use a license that will actually stand up in court!)

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

#145

Post by throwaway82652 »

robonerd wrote: post #59
throwaway82652 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the same kind of unsourced low-information content focused on personal grievances that you would find in an angry twitter or 4chan comment. It's just intellectually lazy and bad writing, this person is smart enough not to do it but does it anyway. If you need me to explain why this is undesirable, then we probably don't have much else to talk about.

> unsourced low-information content Pot, meet kettle. > From the lawyers I've spoken to about this, Linus's view on the GPL and the chosen enforcement strategy has long been known to be nonsense. Unsourced. Low information content. You're throwing a whole lot of vague shade around in this thread. overboard2 asked you for an example, that was an opportunity to get specific, but your response is to make vague compariso…

>Pot, meet kettle.

No, this is incredibly wrong. The source here is me. You can choose to not believe me, but it's a source. I'm sorry but I just don't illegally carry a tape recorder into every meeting I go to just to prove something to a person on the internet. If you want me to elaborate then just ask a specific question, please stop with these "gotcha" tactics because they don't do anything. If you were referring to this person's writings, the article that was already posted is a source.

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

#146

Post by throwaway82652 »

onphonenow wrote: post #58
throwaway82652 wrote: post #53

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". Are you willing to represent yourself in court? If the answer is no, then that's an admission you are stupider than a lawyer when it comes to legal matters. Nothing wrong with it, I have no problem admitting it myself. Let the programmers handle the progr…

I'd skip the name calling. You fail to understand how copyright works. If I'm the creator of the work, I have the copyright to it. And yes, I'd be happy to represent myself if SFC came along and told me I could or couldn't do something with the code I wrote because that makes no sense. I can choose a license, I can dual license, I can re-license future releases and I can stop providing updates under any of those lice…

There's no name calling, "stupid" is the exact word you used. I'm stupider than a lawyer when it comes to all the details of contract law, because I didn't study it as much as they do. If you aren't a lawyer, then you probably are too. Again, nothing wrong with admitting it. You and I can't know everything. It's actually arrogant and insulting to claim that you know more than a skilled lawyer or attorney just because you wrote some code, I would suggest not doing that.

>There seems to be a modern confusion that the folks NOT doing any of the work in writing code have all sorts of rights with respect to it (or time of a dev to fix their bugs). False.

I'm sorry but this makes no sense, it's weird how often I see this sentiment in open source. If you hired a lawyer to represent you and give you legal advice and defend you and court (which is multiple full time jobs) then you're paying them to do a job for you. You're not giving any of your rights away. You don't have to choose to hire SF Conservancy, you can hire another firm.

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

#147

Post by blagie »

lakecresva wrote: post #116
blagie wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 e…

No, pro bono representation would mean I'd get the damages. I'm supportive of SFC getting the damages.

What I want -- both for myself and for the community -- is checks-and-balances to make sure SFC continues doing things in the interest of myself, and more broadly, of the community. A single entity holding a pile of copyrights to FLOSS, with no checks-and-balances, is a liability to the community.

I lose respect for an organization in this business who doesn't understand checks-and-balances and oversight.

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

#148

Post by blagie »

LightHugger wrote: post #126
bawolff wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

You can read it as you like.

It's the fine art of picking apart emails and internet comments for typos and grammar, rather than for meaning, and then nitpicking (referring to baawolf, not LightHugger).

I sometimes flip words when I type. I might have a completely wrong word, repeat something, omit a word, or otherwise. Others do that too. Part of that is typos, and part of that is rewriting as a type. I don't recall what I was thinking, but I suspect I started with "example," edited to "alternative," and didn't re-edit the whole post.

Others do similar things. Worse, plenty of people make errors on the internet. A few lessons I've learned:

- I stopped freaking out when Someone Is Wrong on the Internet. There's enough of that I don't need to correct all of it, and I don't think people doing that are performing much of a public service.

- I use throwaway accounts. Forums like this are more fun if I can talk naturally. I might have be aware of the fine distinctions between joint and half-ownership, but didn't spend hours proofreading a random internet comment, since that would take HN from a fine distraction to a chore. The internet is more fun if I e.g. don't need to be cancelled by the woke crowd over a typo. I think real names on Twitter are a horrible idea, since I'd never engage in any forum where I might be held publicly accountable for every mistake, braino, typo, and bad idea.

- Conversely, I look for smart things people say, insights, and good ideas. I simply ignore dumb ones. I read far-right, far-left, foreign propaganda, and other sources of questionable information. My experience is that there is a mixture of falsehoods and insights I wouldn't have come across elsewhere. I learn a lot. Plus, reading critically, I know what different groups are exposed to.

Oh -- and this is doubly true for WFH and emails. If you assume people always believe what they wrote (as opposed to omitting a "not" mid-sentence) -- you'll run into trouble.

That's an off-topic rant, but I hope it settles the question. I meant neither of those, and didn't edit that deeply.

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

#149

Post by wrycoder »

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_...

Meanwhile, John Sullivan, ED of the FSF itself, made $112K, including benefits. That is more in line with a small educational foundation.

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

#150

Post by wrycoder »

rasz wrote: post #140
simfree wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, so the same as a software developer at a mid-size government agency?

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

Yeah, he is "Treasurer, et. al." on the 990 and "Policy Fellow and Hacker-in-Residence" on the SFC site's Board list.

After he left the FSF he joined the Software Freedom Law Center (Eben Moglen's operation), but only lasted a year. He then started the Software Freedom Conservancy, which resulted in a lawsuit from the SFLC, due the similarity in name and focus.

Post reply on HN