91–100 of 161 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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…
Individual lines of code (or even the odd or even lines as a whole, separate from the other) don't seem likely to usually be works subject to copyright.
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?
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 ?
When you make the claim, you are generally expected to provide proof, yes that's how it works.
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". 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…
That's not a reasonable comparison.
1. Licenses are fundamentally open to interpretation, programming languages have specifications. Yes, the specifications and compiler aren't perfect, however, code is designed to be specific. Legal agreements on the other hands are very intentionally the opposite. Legal agreements consciously avoid being overly specific in order to be broad and all encompassing. Legal agreements fundamentally have access to (and are evaluated with respect to) the concepts of "fair" and "reasonable"; which very intentionally have no strict definition. You need to argue your case.
2. More importantly, licenses are contracts. They're a civil matter (not criminal). Meaning the copyright holder can chose whether or not they want to enforce their license. That's a fundamental right of being a copyright holder. If you consciously don't enforce, you may lose the right to enforce (at least fully), but that is the license holder's call.
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 abilit…
FSF leadership is currently having a crisis since, due to recent events, they realized that Stallman is not eternal. FSF-owned code is an incredible asset. If there were a corporate takeover of the FSF, that could have very bad outcomes.
Regarding contacting every owner, that'd be a nightmare in 1960. In 2022: "We will contact you at the email address on file," an ability to opt in / opt out via web form, and some language about changing to equivalent media (e.g. SMS, fax, robocall, USPS, AOL Instant Messenger, or whatever).
I'll mention I picked out a few examples of nasty legal language. The whole agreement is nasty, unfair, and one-sided. I like the concept a lot, but I'd never sign language like that. I like working with organizations who try to be fair to both sides.
Oh -- and for language which applies to "successors" -- all bets are off. I specifically do not want the SFC to assign my copyright to a successor. I've seen specific examples where a successor to a non-profit was a for-profit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
no one asked that question. GPL source code include some of the largest and most used software systems today.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I could imagine: "In order to raise money to protect free software we have to transfer this one license to Oracle"
yes, that might be a danger given the context. agree. I would like an opinion about transfer of assets from 501(c)x to a ( edit ) for-profit corporation though.. some of these statements are just not true in the articles of non-profit taxation, last I looked into it.
Most 501c entities are corporations.
You probably mean “to a business entity that is not itself a 501c”, but generally a 501c is free to sell assets to other entities without regard to form or (absence of) nonprofit status, though there are other restrictions that might come into play.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 ?
The only contradictions here are basically every commenter contradicting your (obviously incorrect) assertion that non-profits cannot sell assets to for-profit entities in the US. When you make the claim, you are generally expected to provide proof, yes that's how it works.
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?
However, I'd encourage you to look into hospitals, industry groups like the RIAA, family foundations like the Trump Foundation, and similar organizations. You can find your own examples easily enough.
That's not to mention non-profits hijacked for new purposes (e.g. the current move away from founding values to woke values for a few organizations that's been bugging HN commentators lately).
(And yes, I do know the difference between a 501(c)3, 501(c)6, family foundation, etc).