8 ms·

SF Conservancy now accepting copyright assignment for any GPL software

86 points by logic 4y ago

schoen 4y ago
I wonder if this is a risk for Conservancy if some other party claims that some piece of GPLed software violates its rights somehow. Would other parties name Conservancy as a defendant in lawsuits if they learn that copyrights have been assigned to it? (Maybe there's some remedy that plaintiffs would sometimes like to try to get that only the copyright holder can provide, like assigning copyright to a plaintiff in a settlement?)
- cmeacham98 4y ago
  I don't believe that owning the copyright to software can ever be infringing, at least in the US (disclaimer: not a lawyer, feel free to correct). It is generally the act of distributing said software that falls into some sort of legal violation.
  - schoen 4y ago
    I agree, but I don't immediately understand if that would necessarily always save Conservancy from being drawn into lawsuits about other matters.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
jmole 4y ago
SF = Software Freedom != San Francisco
galaxyLogic 4y ago
"... aren't providing the source or repair and modification information that the project's license requires ..." I wasn't aware that open source requires you to provide "repair and modification information". I thought it just requires you to make source-code modified by you publicly available. Can anyone elaborate on what the "repair information" in particular refers to?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- hoppyhoppy2 4y ago
  The link in that same paragraph has some more info. ( https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html ) It seems to me like it's a rhetorical framing of GPL rights to place them within the "right to repair" movement. (Think Richard Stallman wanting to fix issues with the printer at MIT, but unable to because the driver was closed-source proprietary code)
- initplus 4y ago
  There are more requirements than just making the source available. GPLv3 has an anti-Tivoization clause that forbids using GPLv3 code in a product in a way that the GPLv3 code is not able to be replaced by the end user. And there are also requirements that you distribute additionaal "Installation Information" alongside the code itself. If you have to release your code under GPL, you must make it possible for end users to build & run your code. Can't hide behind proprietary in-house compilers, build systems, or build time dependencies on proprietary data to prevent end users making use of the GPL'd source. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#InstInfo https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#InstInfo "GPLv3 explicitly requires redistribution to include the full necessary “Installation Information.” GPLv2 doesn't use that term, but it does require redistribution to include scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable with the complete and corresponding source code. This covers part, but not all, of what GPLv3 calls “Installation Information.” Thus, GPLv3's requirement about installation information is stronger."
- pabs3 4y ago
  The right to repair software on devices is just as if not more important than the right to repair devices themselves. Indeed, it is often the software on the devices that blocks repairing devices themselves. Look up the stuff about American farmers using hacking tools to be able to fix their tractors full of sophisticated electronics. Or Apple requiring pairing between parts of the iPhone.
hmmmmhmm 4y ago
How can we trust that the SF Conservancy, or its successors, won't do something untoward with the copyright assignment? Looking at their list of sponsors doesn't exactly assuage any such doubts as to their trustworthiness either.
- walterbell 4y ago
  Prior instance of principal-agent problem in open-source, https://lunduke.substack.com/p/linux-foundation-spends-just-34-of 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 sufficient for SFC to represent the copyright owner? Would joint/minority ownership be an option? Leaving aside legal concerns, could code maintainers possibly lose the ability to steward their OSS community and set governance policy, after they surrender copyright?
  - skrtskrt 4y ago
    They also run training courses and certificates through that that horrific EdX website… blecch
  - swores 4y ago
    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.
    - walterbell 4y ago
      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.
garlic100 4y ago
Why can they not defend software rights without copyright assignment? Surely they could pay the legal fees for a third party! More and more foundations are inserting themselves into the process of "developing" software. Most of them have handsomely paid directors, who parade at conferences and talk about how awesome free software is. The actual developers are supposed to be silent work horses and deliver everything for free. They are increasingly treated as cogs whose names are never mentioned.
- thfuran 4y ago
  You can agree to pay someone's legal fees but you can't generally file legal action on their behalf without their involvement. So they could potentially defend the software rights of people who are sufficiently easy to contact and willing to be at least nominally involved in legal proceedings.
  - charcircuit 4y ago
    They could just send you on email: XYZ is violating your license for project X in their project Y. Do you wish to take action?
    - chii 4y ago
      and if there's no reply, what happens? You cannot assume the copyright holder is affirmative in this case, and file a suit.
      - charcircuit 4y ago
        Then you wouldn't pursue it.
      - jen20 4y ago
        If there’s no reply, there’d be no action.
onphonenow 4y ago
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 reasonable. The SF Conservancy is now trying to SUE folks over using GPL code they had no hand in creating. This would let them leverage a very extreme position to after the fact re-write what the licensing meant. BTW, they have a long history of this poor behavior. Here is Linus Torvalds notes on them. "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 Note this goes hand in hand with others attempts to re-write the GPL following their failures to force through the GPLv3 such as the EFF. This involves lots of handwaving and appeals to history but doesn't match what developers understood the GPLv2 to mean at all. This shows that once you get the lawyers involved, it's seriously game over in some cases. Even though they were not lawyers, the early folks created very useful clear licenses.
- simulate-me 4y ago
  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.
  - onphonenow 4y ago
    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/ 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.
blagie 4y ago
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 my AGPL code under the BSD license (or vice-versa) ... and so on. The whole point of free software licenses is to act as a sort of constitution or code-of-conduct. This just hands over the keys to the castle. I would love to have this service, but I would never blindly hand over my copyright like this. I would definitely NOT sign anything with language like "irrevocably appoints Conservancy as their attorney-in-fact to take any necessary steps to perfect Conservancy’s rights under this Agreement." This just feels predatory. I'm not attributing malice, but SFC should go back and draft an agreement that's fair to both sides. SFC should guarantee basic rights, such as that the license won't be changed without my permission, not "The Conservancy will use its discretion for any relicensing of the Works under other free and open source software licenses. Decisions about relicensing made by Conservancy will apply to its assignees and successors." I've seen not-for-profits drift from their roots, in one case, even selling all similar assets and rights to a for-profit. (As a footnote, if they wanted this to be sustainable, they might give the assignor some portion of damages if they ever need to enforce the license)
- mistrial9 4y ago
  > 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?
  - mistrial9 4y ago
    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 ?
    - 4y ago
midislack 4y ago
SPONSORS: GOOGLE, RED HAT Hahahahahahaaaaa. Hoooo.
- bawolff 4y ago
  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.
jeremiahboby 4y ago
thanks
rurban 4y ago
Another direct attack against the FSF, whow.

86 points by logic 4y ago

I wonder if this is a risk for Conservancy if some other party claims that some piece of GPLed software violates its rights somehow. Would other parties name Conservancy as a defendant in lawsuits if they learn that copyrights have been assigned to it? (Maybe there's some remedy that plaintiffs would sometimes like to try to get that only the copyright holder can provide, like assigning copyright to a plaintiff in a settlement?)

cmeacham98 4y ago
I don't believe that owning the copyright to software can ever be infringing, at least in the US (disclaimer: not a lawyer, feel free to correct). It is generally the act of distributing said software that falls into some sort of legal violation.
- schoen 4y ago
  I agree, but I don't immediately understand if that would necessarily always save Conservancy from being drawn into lawsuits about other matters.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

jmole 4y ago

SF = Software Freedom != San Francisco

galaxyLogic 4y ago

"... aren't providing the source or repair and modification information that the project's license requires ..." I wasn't aware that open source requires you to provide "repair and modification information". I thought it just requires you to make source-code modified by you publicly available. Can anyone elaborate on what the "repair information" in particular refers to?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
hoppyhoppy2 4y ago
The link in that same paragraph has some more info. ( https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html ) It seems to me like it's a rhetorical framing of GPL rights to place them within the "right to repair" movement. (Think Richard Stallman wanting to fix issues with the printer at MIT, but unable to because the driver was closed-source proprietary code)
initplus 4y ago
There are more requirements than just making the source available. GPLv3 has an anti-Tivoization clause that forbids using GPLv3 code in a product in a way that the GPLv3 code is not able to be replaced by the end user. And there are also requirements that you distribute additionaal "Installation Information" alongside the code itself. If you have to release your code under GPL, you must make it possible for end users to build & run your code. Can't hide behind proprietary in-house compilers, build systems, or build time dependencies on proprietary data to prevent end users making use of the GPL'd source. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#InstInfo https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#InstInfo "GPLv3 explicitly requires redistribution to include the full necessary “Installation Information.” GPLv2 doesn't use that term, but it does require redistribution to include scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable with the complete and corresponding source code. This covers part, but not all, of what GPLv3 calls “Installation Information.” Thus, GPLv3's requirement about installation information is stronger."
pabs3 4y ago
The right to repair software on devices is just as if not more important than the right to repair devices themselves. Indeed, it is often the software on the devices that blocks repairing devices themselves. Look up the stuff about American farmers using hacking tools to be able to fix their tractors full of sophisticated electronics. Or Apple requiring pairing between parts of the iPhone.

hmmmmhmm 4y ago

How can we trust that the SF Conservancy, or its successors, won't do something untoward with the copyright assignment? Looking at their list of sponsors doesn't exactly assuage any such doubts as to their trustworthiness either.

walterbell 4y ago
Prior instance of principal-agent problem in open-source, https://lunduke.substack.com/p/linux-foundation-spends-just-34-of 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 sufficient for SFC to represent the copyright owner? Would joint/minority ownership be an option? Leaving aside legal concerns, could code maintainers possibly lose the ability to steward their OSS community and set governance policy, after they surrender copyright?
- skrtskrt 4y ago
  They also run training courses and certificates through that that horrific EdX website… blecch
- swores 4y ago
  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.
  - walterbell 4y ago
    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.

garlic100 4y ago

Why can they not defend software rights without copyright assignment? Surely they could pay the legal fees for a third party! More and more foundations are inserting themselves into the process of "developing" software. Most of them have handsomely paid directors, who parade at conferences and talk about how awesome free software is. The actual developers are supposed to be silent work horses and deliver everything for free. They are increasingly treated as cogs whose names are never mentioned.

thfuran 4y ago
You can agree to pay someone's legal fees but you can't generally file legal action on their behalf without their involvement. So they could potentially defend the software rights of people who are sufficiently easy to contact and willing to be at least nominally involved in legal proceedings.
- charcircuit 4y ago
  They could just send you on email: XYZ is violating your license for project X in their project Y. Do you wish to take action?
  - chii 4y ago
    and if there's no reply, what happens? You cannot assume the copyright holder is affirmative in this case, and file a suit.
    - charcircuit 4y ago
      Then you wouldn't pursue it.
    - jen20 4y ago
      If there’s no reply, there’d be no action.

onphonenow 4y ago

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 reasonable. The SF Conservancy is now trying to SUE folks over using GPL code they had no hand in creating. This would let them leverage a very extreme position to after the fact re-write what the licensing meant. BTW, they have a long history of this poor behavior. Here is Linus Torvalds notes on them. "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 Note this goes hand in hand with others attempts to re-write the GPL following their failures to force through the GPLv3 such as the EFF. This involves lots of handwaving and appeals to history but doesn't match what developers understood the GPLv2 to mean at all. This shows that once you get the lawyers involved, it's seriously game over in some cases. Even though they were not lawyers, the early folks created very useful clear licenses.

simulate-me 4y ago
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.
- onphonenow 4y ago
  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/ 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.

blagie 4y ago

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 my AGPL code under the BSD license (or vice-versa) ... and so on. The whole point of free software licenses is to act as a sort of constitution or code-of-conduct. This just hands over the keys to the castle. I would love to have this service, but I would never blindly hand over my copyright like this. I would definitely NOT sign anything with language like "irrevocably appoints Conservancy as their attorney-in-fact to take any necessary steps to perfect Conservancy’s rights under this Agreement." This just feels predatory. I'm not attributing malice, but SFC should go back and draft an agreement that's fair to both sides. SFC should guarantee basic rights, such as that the license won't be changed without my permission, not "The Conservancy will use its discretion for any relicensing of the Works under other free and open source software licenses. Decisions about relicensing made by Conservancy will apply to its assignees and successors." I've seen not-for-profits drift from their roots, in one case, even selling all similar assets and rights to a for-profit. (As a footnote, if they wanted this to be sustainable, they might give the assignor some portion of damages if they ever need to enforce the license)

mistrial9 4y ago
> 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?
- mistrial9 4y ago
  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 ?
  - 4y ago

midislack 4y ago

SPONSORS: GOOGLE, RED HAT Hahahahahahaaaaa. Hoooo.

bawolff 4y ago
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.

jeremiahboby 4y ago

thanks

rurban 4y ago

Another direct attack against the FSF, whow.