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

61–70 of 161 posts

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

#61

Post by onphonenow »

simulate-me wrote: post #28
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…

It depends on your viewpoint. GPL code authors rarely have the means to pursue legal action in response to license violations. As a result, GPL code is generally "stolen" with impunity.

If you really want to pursue violations you COULD partner with SFC - the busybox developer did this.

"As the ex-maintainer of busybox who STARTED those lawsuits in the first place and now HUGELY REGRETS ever having done so, I think I'm entitled to stop the lawsuits in whatever way I see fit. They never resulted in a single line of code added to the busybox repository. They HAVE resulted in more than one company exiting Linux development entirely and switching to non-Linux operating systems" - https://lwn.net/Articles/478361/

Here is the SFC's issue (came up when busybox replacements were discussed)

"What can we do? The real problem here is that the SFC's reliance on Busybox means that they're only able to target infringers who use that Busybox code. No significant kernel copyright holders have so far offered to allow the SFC to enforce their copyrights, with the result that enforcement action will grind to a halt as vendors move over to this Busybox replacement."

What's weird is despite NO significant copyright holder going along with SFC, they keep on marching forward as if they are backed by folks creating this code.

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

#62

Post by dolni »

lakecresva wrote: post #17
dolni wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> * For project maintainers: The SF Conservancy can't prevent developers from working on their own project, because it is GPL-licensed and copyright holders can't retract GPL licensing once it's been given. No, they can't retract your permission to use your own software, but they can prevent you from going after infringing parties if SF Conservancy holds the copyright. And at that point, why assign them copyright at…

Because 99.9% of developers aren't willing to suffer the time and expense of investigating violations and enforcing their copyrights in federal court.

So why can't the SF Conservancy assist by making resources available to developers who are interested?

If pro bono legal representation were provided, I wager a number of developers would take up that offer.

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

#63

Post by jcranmer »

onphonenow wrote: post #51
throwaway82652 wrote: post #41

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".

The first part of the statement--if you want to license your code a certain way--your lawyer should be to work with you to find a way to legally do that. Unless you want something patently absurd like "I want a way to let me murder any idiots who use my code without any consequences whatsoever."

It's the parenthetical that's problematic: you can't control how the law will be interpreted, and if you've got an incorrect interpretation of the law, you'll be laughed out of the courtroom. See, for example, any sovereign citizen case.

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

#64

Post by robocat »

charcircuit wrote: post #23
MichaelBurge wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Something untoward" is a bit vague. You have to specify who's being threatened at the very least. * For project maintainers: The SF Conservancy can't prevent developers from working on their own project, because it is GPL-licensed and copyright holders can't retract GPL licensing once it's been given. * For end-users: The GPL is a copyright license, not a EULA. So it only affects developers. * For businesses that di…

>copyright holders can't retract GPL licensing once it's been given This is only true for GPLv3, and not GPLv2.

A specialist lawyer paid to investigate the subject and write their legal opinion says GPLv2 can’t be revoked (section 7.4 GPLv2 Irrevocability): https://copyleft.org/guide/comprehensive-gpl-guidech8.html#x...

Of course, many other non-specialists have contrary opinions. If you have a link to a legal opinion to the contrary (by a lawyer skilled in the relevant areas), could you please share it?

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

#65

Post by garaetjjte »

bawolff wrote: post #47
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 a…

This is described by post itself:

>The lawsuit we filed last year against Vizio takes an approach more appropriate for widely marketed and available consumer devices. Namely, the claim in Vizio is a contract claim for third-party beneficiary rights under the GPL, which will allow us (and all other customers who bought Vizio TV's) to receive the repair and modification instructions to the software more directly.

I don't think this is against the spirit of GPL, after all the focus of it is user freedom (though arguably GPLv2 ended up weaker than expected by FSF (TiVo hole), and then FSF strongly pushed to switch to GPLv3 while ignoring that some developers deliberately preferred v2 terms).

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

#66

Post by robonerd »

onphonenow wrote: post #61
simulate-me wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends on your viewpoint. GPL code authors rarely have the means to pursue legal action in response to license violations. As a result, GPL code is generally "stolen" with impunity.

If you really want to pursue violations you COULD partner with SFC - the busybox developer did this. "As the ex-maintainer of busybox who STARTED those lawsuits in the first place and now HUGELY REGRETS ever having done so, I think I'm entitled to stop the lawsuits in whatever way I see fit. They never resulted in a single line of code added to the busybox repository. They HAVE resulted in more than one company exiti…

> They never resulted in a single line of code added to the busybox repository.

This is why you don't want lawyers calling the shots. Lawyers are looking to get paid, they'd rather get a cash settlement than get the code. If the lawyers are working for you, the copyright holder, then you can choose how to handle the situation. But if you sign the code over to the lawyers, it will no longer be your call.

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

#67

Post by HWR_14 »

onphonenow wrote: post #51
throwaway82652 wrote: post #41

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".

The exact same authority developers have when they tell their clients that they cannot run a 1,000,000 person site off the phone they forget to charge sometimes. Or even a designer telling a client their color scheme is poor (it clashes, isn't color-blind friendly, and renders poorly on anything smaller than a tablet)! It's a technical matter and they are paid SMEs.

They aren't saying Linus's goals are stupid. They're saying the methods he's using to achieve the goals are. Which makes sense. Because he's not a lawyer.

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

#68

Post by djbusby »

bawolff wrote: post #47
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 a…

They (SFC) sued Vizio

https://www.lawyer-monthly.com/2021/10/software-freedom-cons...

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

#70

Post by seoaeu »

onphonenow wrote: post #51
throwaway82652 wrote: post #41

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".

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 to work the way you intend, there’s some rules that have to be followed

Post reply on HN