Live data from Hacker News

SF Conservancy now accepting copyright assignment for any GPL software

sfconservancy.org

51–60 of 161 posts

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

#51

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.

I'm just curious here. 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".

Especially if my approach has single handedly created the largest body of copyleft / collaborative / open source software out there with massive amounts of actual collaboration.

The irony is so strong here. Basically jerks, who can't get along with others (including each other, witness the battles between SFC and SFLC etc etc) with little value creation themselves want to force their view on others, even though folks have already voted with their feet.

By all means create the Affero GPLv3. Try to get folks to write software for it. That's fine.

But don't pretend to be on some moral high ground speaking for developers / creators who wrote the code. Let them speak for themselves. And don't go back and having lost the effort to get Affero GPLv3 or whatever adopted close the various SAAS and Tivo loopholes, go back and say some old license has these terms.

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

#52

SPONSORS: GOOGLE, RED HAT Hahahahahahaaaaa. Hoooo.

Google tends to be very active in the open source world, and follow all their rules.

They might be evil, but they've never been evil in the way that would make me worry about them sponsoring this.

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

#53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm just curious here. 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". Especially if my approach has single handedly created the largest body of copyleft / collaborative / open source software out there with massive amounts of actual collaboration. The irony is so strong here. Basically jerks, who can't…

>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 programming and let the lawyers handle the law.

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

#54
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 absolutely sell assets to for-profit institutions. See: Every non-profit that sells things.

Or for a nefarious but legal example, see the attempted selling off the rights to the .org TLD rights by ICANN. https://thenextweb.com/news/hurray-the-org-tld-wont-be-sold-...

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

#55
post #36

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…

It appears to me that this post of yours involves lots of handwaving and appeals to history while the GPL continues to be ignored (look no further than e.g. Tesla). Where is the hyperbolic let them leverage a very extreme position when some open source project asks for copyright assignment?

The issue the SFC has had is that folks like Linus and other developers are not interested AT ALL in their approach to enforcement or their interpretation of the GPL.

Since code talks and talk walks, they are not left with a ton. The Affero GPLv3 fell totally flat. GPLv3 pretty flat (Samba was a big adopter maybe? Not sure what growth they saw after that). Some of the SFC enforcement saw a big move / growth in MIT style licenses (no copyleft elements really) which is a big tragedy as well as a fracturing of licensing (another miss in my book).

So if they can get folks to assign them the copyright, that will let them start chasing again.

I'm not handwaving, I cited the article, the youtube video. This is pretty well known as a debate.

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

#56
post #50
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.

presumably that is why he listed both options separately.

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

#57
post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

They can sell them if not in accordance with their mission by paying taxes on the sale as well (UBIT). There are very few restrictions on what a nonprofit can and can’t do.

https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/tools-resources/unrelate...

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

#58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm just curious here. 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". Especially if my approach has single handedly created the largest body of copyleft / collaborative / open source software out there with massive amounts of actual collaboration. The irony is so strong here. Basically jerks, who can't…

>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 licenses.

So sure, if you and the SFC want to go after me for my code, go for it.

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.

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

#59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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 comparisons to 4chan?

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

#60
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Prior instance of principal-agent problem in open-source, https://lunduke.substack.com/p/linux-foundation-spends-just-... > The Linux Foundation — the organization that effectively controls Linux and employs the creator of Linux — only spends 3.4% [of $177M] on… Linux. Is the proposed SFC copyright assignment intended to be temporary, e.g. could it be returned to the creator after a legal case is won? Why is it not s…

You've linked to an article that is very clearly written in bad faith because it dislikes decisions being taken by the Linux organisation, not because they are actually dumb enough to think that a 3.4% line item for "linux kernel development" means that's all they spend on linux. Urgh.

I’m not sure what that tells you in the best case though.. They could surely break out a line for Kernel, but then does the investment in Automotive Grade Linux count? Or Civil Infrastructure Project? Or whatever that new OpenSSF project is? If they spend $10M on hosting OSSNA, should that count? Does money spent supporting K8s somehow detract from the kernel work?

It’s just such a weird flawed premise of a measure I can’t imagine how it’d be useful in determining anything about their motivations.

Post reply on HN