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

81–90 of 161 posts

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

#81

Post by im3w1l »

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…

GPL is a license to use copyrighted software. Fundamentally it sits on top of copyright. It can never be stronger than that foundation. If you are using a few lines of code without a valid license thats a copyright breach. And you can be sued. But for what amount? How large damages can you claim for the illicit use of a few lines? Not a lot, likely.

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

#82

Post by not2b »

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 assume that you're talking about this:

https://wptavern.com/software-freedom-conservancy-takes-on-v...

The GPL (version 2 or 3) says that if someone distributes a binary of a GPL-covered program, the person who receives the binary is entitled to receive source code. So the Conservancy brought an action on behalf of users: look, the text says you owe us source code. Please provide it.

Apparently you think that this is a "scary new approach". But the GPL was written to protect users.

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

#83

Post by mistrial9 »

jcranmer wrote: post #63
onphonenow wrote: post #51

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". 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…

absolutely disagree with this paternalistic interpretation.. coders are typically literate. Your example claims some exaggerated illiterate premise and then uses that to say "talk to a lawyer instead" .. no comment beyond that since we obviously have different concepts of what rights of an author are...

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

#84

Post by robonerd »

dolni wrote: post #62
lakecresva wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If the developer owns the code: The violator may offer to make things right by releasing the code. The developer may choose to accept this offer, leaving the lawyer with little.

If the lawyer owns the code: The violator's offer to simply release the code is refused by the lawyers, who go for the jugular and try to bleed the violating company for as much money as they can.

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

#85

Post by paulv »

wrycoder wrote: post #73
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…

SFC is an enemy of Richard Stallman. In spite of the fact that the SFC would not exist without RMS, they explicitly supported the attempt to eject him from the Free Software Foundation on the basis of trumped up allegations. The SFC is Brad Kuhn's attempt to profit off the GPL, which he couldn't do when he was associated with the FSF or the Software Freedom Law Center.

You can take a look at the 990's, Bradley is _definitely_ NOT getting rich off of his work with the SFC.

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

#86

Post by lokar »

mistrial9 wrote: post #76
lokar wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Search for "deaccession" as an example

this is probably reasonable .. the others are less so

I could imagine:

"In order to raise money to protect free software we have to transfer this one license to Oracle"

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

#87

Post by not2b »

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…

They want violators to stop being violators and comply, by releasing source code when they fork a GPLed work.

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

#88

Post by mistrial9 »

onphonenow wrote: post #58
throwaway82652 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 lice…

in the USA there is strong copyright for the author of the work in question. Work-for-hire is well understood in Chapter 1 of any book on that topic. Secondly, a court appearance is not required to be an author and therefore copyright holder. Suggestions that "if you are not able to make a court appearance then XYZ and etc" .. is fallacious to start with, condescending and sounds a lot like an attorney arrogance. NOLO Press, read my lips

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

#90

Post by mistrial9 »

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?

blatent contradictory statements here, without substantiation.. Do I have to find the legal documents on demand of this thread? this is USA non-profit law that is being discussed? settled law ?
Post reply on HN