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

41–50 of 161 posts

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

#41

Post by throwaway82652 »

jcranmer wrote: post #38
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 actually think we should talk about GPL enforcement at the kernel summit, because I think it's an important issue," Torvalds gently began, "but we should talk about it the way we talk about other issues: among kernel developers. No lawyers present unless they are in the capacity of a developer and maintainer of actual code, and in particular, absolutely not the Software Freedom Conservancy." - Linus Torvalds Thi…

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. But nothing will change as long as the kernel developers are intentionally burying their head in the sand and acting like they know better than the legal system.

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

#42

Post by overboard2 »

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.

What is reactionary trolling, why is it bad, and why are his articles an example of it?

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

#43

Post by mistrial9 »

blagie wrote: post #26

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 m…

> not-for-profits drift from their roots, in one case, even selling all similar assets and rights to a for-profit

that is a neat trick, since a non-profit cannot own and sell assets like that, that I know of, in the USA. details? hogwash?

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

#44

Post by lakecresva »

blagie wrote: post #26

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 m…

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 ability to switch to something else if they don't want to just close up shop. The idea of trying to contact every copyright holder and having to bargain with them over relicensing sounds like a nightmare, and contractual language like "relicensing of the Works under a substantially similar license" is a non-starter.

You're taking a risk. Do you think they're going to try and hijack your copyright for some nefarious purpose, or do you think they might need flexibility in relicensing your work in the future?

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

#45

Post by mistrial9 »

throwaway82652 wrote: post #41
jcranmer wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "I actually think we should talk about GPL enforcement at the kernel summit, because I think it's an important issue," Torvalds gently began, "but we should talk about it the way we talk about other issues: among kernel developers. No lawyers present unless they are in the capacity of a developer and maintainer of actual code, and in particular, absolutely not the Software Freedom Conservancy." - Linus Torvalds Thi…

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. But nothing will change as long as the kernel developers are intentionally burying their head in the sand and acting like they know better than the legal system.

> has long been known to be nonsense

could any statement be less substantiated than pure FUD like that?

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

#46

Post by throwaway82652 »

overboard2 wrote: post #42
throwaway82652 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What is reactionary trolling, why is it bad, and why are his articles an example of it?

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.

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

#47

Post by bawolff »

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…

> 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 against the will of the copyright owner, as the copyright owner is allowed to give new licenses to anyone they want under whatever terms they want.

Edit: i stand corrected.

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

#48

Post by charcircuit »

RHSeeger wrote: post #40
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.

Do you have any reliable sources for that being the case? Everything I've read, pretty much ever, about the GPLv2 indicates that the version of code released under the GPLv2 is forever available under the GPLv2. You can change the license, but people are always free to use the last version that was released under GPLv2.

I don't know off the top of my head but searching for "rescinding the GPL" should turn some stuff up. It's at least a grey area.

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

#49

Post by bawolff »

mistrial9 wrote: post #43
blagie wrote: post #26

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 m…

> not-for-profits drift from their roots, in one case, even selling all similar assets and rights to a for-profit that is a neat trick, since a non-profit cannot own and sell assets like that, that I know of, in the USA. details? hogwash?

Non-profits can sell assets if its in accordance with their mission. Why wouldn't they be able to?

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

#50

Post by bawolff »

blagie wrote: post #26

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 m…

> 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

Jointly owning the copyright is different from them owning half and you owning half.

Post reply on HN