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

151–160 of 161 posts

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

#151

Post by onphonenow »

pabs3 wrote: post #130
onphonenow wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/

Um, that's the SFC version of GPLv2 intent. The actual folks using GPLv2 have a different view. This actually illustrates the issue that is going on with their attempt to claim GPL is not a copyright license (it has always been considered to be a copyright license) and their desire to change the intent. When you start having to twist and turn words and ideas this way you are in lawyer lala land.

"I give you source code, you give me your changes back; we’re even. … That’s my take on GPL version 2 and it’s that simple. … Version 3 extended that in ways that I personally am really uncomfortable with. Namely I give you source code, that means if you use that source code, you can’t use it on your device unless you follow my rules. And to me that’s a violation of everything version 2 stood for. And I understand why the FSF did it, because I know what the FSF wants, but to me it’s not the same license at all. So I was very upset, and made it very clear, and this was months before version 3 was actually published."

Please stop lying about what is "clear". The actual folks using these licenses disagree.

Here is Stallman on GPLv3

"There are several primary areas where version 3 is different from version 2. One is in regard to [T]ivoisation.

...

The Tivo includes some GPL-covered software. …[Y]ou can get the source code for that, as required by the GPL … and once you get the source code, you can modify it, and there are ways to install the modified software in your Tivo and if you do that, it won't run, period. Because, it does a check sum of the software and it verifies that it's a version from them and if it's your version, it won't run at all. So this is what we are forbidding, with the text we have written for GPL version three. It says that the source code they must give you includes whatever signature keys, or codes that are necessary to make your modified version run."

Who is Stallman you ask? The key guy behind GPLv2 (not the SFC BTW).

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

#152

Post by onphonenow »

HWR_14 wrote: post #71
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…

> 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…

The SFC / related entities have worked with GPL developers to sue. All they need is a developer to let them act as their lawyer (for free).

This is what is remarkable. The SFC is so toxic in the open source developer community that despite their being a ton of a developers, not that many want to jump on the SFC train. So yes, this makes it hard for them.

Linus joked the title of a talk should be:

"Lawyers: poisonous to openness, poisonous to community, poisonous to projects".

So an approach for SFC might be to write code and start contributing. One challenge they might face is that a) they can't write code and/or b) getting developers to write for them that can do meaningful work may be difficult given their reputation and c) open source projects might choose not to accept their code because they know they'd be getting in bed with the SFC.

Realize the SFC views are very left field. They are now arguing in the Vizio case that the GPL is not a copyright license but some kind of contract with users. This is so backwards its crazy.

One solution, they write some very cool software everyone WANTS to use, then they could sue everyone. Downside, folks might stop using their software.

Developers have sued - that's mostly been fine I think. Harald Welte did a lot for the GPL. I liked most of his cases. He kept it focused on GPL license being available, and source code being available. He even won cases where links to source code in documentation were not allowed which was an interesting twist. But fundamentally his litigation followed Linus's and many other developers views, I give you my code, you give me yours, we are square. He did over 100 cases, and was successful every time that I know of.

I think the SFC is going to be on much thinner ground with their Vizio case but we will see.

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

#153

Post by benmanns »

throwaway82652 wrote: post #37
walterbell wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you recommend another article with a better breakdown of Linux spending by LF? It's not exactly a popular or risk-free topic for tech journalists, since many tech companies sponsor LF projects.

You can just look up the Linux Foundation's tax statements, they're publicly available. Bryan Lunduke's recent writings are a bad source, they consist almost entirely of reactionary trolling. No idea why he gets any readership.

Linux Foundation's 2018 Form 990 (latest available): https://apps.irs.gov/pub/epostcard/cor/460503801_201812_990O...

Accessible via: https://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/detailsPage?ein=460503801&name=...

You can find other non-profits here: https://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/allSearch

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

#154

Post by not2b »

HWR_14 wrote: post #136
not2b wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

They use legal action as a tool to make that happen; in many cases you never hear about it because the company quietly settles and releases source code.

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

#155

Post by akerl_ »

dhzhzjsbevs wrote: post #142
akerl_ wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

That’s just not the case.

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

#156

Post by HWR_14 »

not2b wrote: post #154
HWR_14 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

They use legal action as a tool to make that happen; in many cases you never hear about it because the company quietly settles and releases source code.

So, way to dodge the question.

What I asked was " 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"

You responded with "they".

That's not addressing my point, which is asking about which actor is taking action, why they are and not another actor, etc.

Like, is someone who contributed 3 lines of code 7 years ago going to be actively suing people?

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

#157

Post by onphonenow »

seoaeu wrote: post #143
onphonenow wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The issue is the legal system has, to date, largely followed the understood intent of the GPLv2.

Consulting with the SFC does nothing to advance anything.

Harald Welte has had great success getting folks to release source code. However, he does not threaten commercial use of GPL software, no unlock keys / signing keys etc are needed.

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

#158

Post by onphonenow »

jcranmer wrote: post #125
onphonenow wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If GPLv3 had been GPLv2 plus patent stuff and a few other things it'd likely have been very welcomed.

For folks following along, the GPLv3 is more than 2x the length of the GPLv2

"If you convey an object code work under this section in, or with, or specifically for use in, a User Product, and the conveying occurs as part of a transaction in which the right of possession and use of the User Product is transferred to the recipient in perpetuity or for a fixed term (regardless of how the transaction is characterized), the Corresponding Source conveyed under this section must be accompanied by the Installation Information. But this requirement does not apply if neither you nor any third party retains the ability to install modified object code on the User Product"

Give you a feel for the GPLv3 style :)

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

#159

Post by onphonenow »

HWR_14 wrote: post #156
not2b wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They use legal action as a tool to make that happen; in many cases you never hear about it because the company quietly settles and releases source code.

So, way to dodge the question. What I asked was " 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" You responded with "they". That's not addressing my point, which is asking about which actor is taking action, why they are and not another actor, etc. Like, is someone who contributed 3 lines of code 7 years ago going to…

Yes, they could if they care too. Folks have done this with (relatively) small contributions.

Most companies are willing to share their code as GPL requires when asked.

What they aren't willing to do is provide authorization keys etc to hardware etc as they don't feel GPLv2 requires that. Because most GPLv2 devs ALSO don't think GPLv2 requires that not a lot of litigation there.

My guess is that if SFC does get a smaller kernel contributor to assign copyright the kernel devs may try and remove their contribution.

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

#160

Post by pabs3 »

onphonenow wrote: post #151
pabs3 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/

Um, that's the SFC version of GPLv2 intent. The actual folks using GPLv2 have a different view. This actually illustrates the issue that is going on with their attempt to claim GPL is not a copyright license (it has always been considered to be a copyright license) and their desire to change the intent. When you start having to twist and turn words and ideas this way you are in lawyer lala land. "I give you source co…

Nothing in GPLv2 requires giving changes back, only giving changes forward to the downstream users is required, not back upstream to the original developers. Giving code to users is pretty pointless if they can't install and run it, which is why both GPLv2 and GPLv3 require this. It is the culture of working upstream that leads to code flowing back to the original developers (obviously this is a very important thing to do, but it isn't required by the license). So I think Linus might need to write a new license to achieve what he actually wants from GPLv2. Note that any such license would discriminate against some classes of people who can't or mustn't communicate externally (those on a desert island, those in a totalitarian regime etc), so probably wouldn't be classed as "open source".

I expect that Stallman simply did not know the details of what Tivo was doing, or was worried about what they might do in the future. Their actions didn't include preventing you from running modified GPLed software (although that is a scary thing that is definitely possible and currently likely present in modern devices). They only prevented you from running their proprietary software on top of modified GPLed software. Stallman wanted to prevent that scenario with GPLv3, but the wording that finally made it into GPLv3 still allows what Tivo was doing.

https://events19.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017...

Post reply on HN