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 my AGPL code under the BSD license (or vice-versa)
... and so on. The whole point of free software licenses is to act as a sort of constitution or code-of-conduct. This just hands over the keys to the castle.
I would love to have this service, but I would never blindly hand over my copyright like this. I would definitely NOT sign anything with language like "irrevocably appoints Conservancy as their attorney-in-fact to take any necessary steps to perfect Conservancy’s rights under this Agreement." This just feels predatory.
I'm not attributing malice, but SFC should go back and draft an agreement that's fair to both sides. SFC should guarantee basic rights, such as that the license won't be changed without my permission, not "The Conservancy will use its discretion for any relicensing of the Works under other free and open source software licenses. Decisions about relicensing made by Conservancy will apply to its assignees and successors."
I've seen not-for-profits drift from their roots, in one case, even selling all similar assets and rights to a for-profit.
(As a footnote, if they wanted this to be sustainable, they might give the assignor some portion of damages if they ever need to enforce the license)