4 ms·

Looks like the devels weren't all that happy about assigning the copyright of their code to the FSF. Part of the e-mail thread discussing the move is here http

Looks like the devels weren't all that happy about assigning the copyright of their code to the FSF. Part of the e-mail thread discussing the move is here https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/nano-devel/2016-05/msg00015.html https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/nano-devel/2016-05/msg000... I did't have the time to dig out the whole conversation history.

infodroid 10y ago
I reviewed the discussion but I still can't understand what the controversy is about. According to the following explanatory note from the GNU project, developers don't have to assign copyright to the FSF for it to be an official GNU project: When the developers of a program make it a GNU package, they can decide either to give the copyright to the FSF so it can enforce the GPL for the package, or else to keep the copyright as well as the responsibility for enforcing the GPL. Source: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.en.html --- FYI this is the start of the discussion thread: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/nano-devel/2016-05/msg00012.html https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/nano-devel/2016-05/msg000...
- supercheetah 10y ago
  Interesting. It looks like the Nano devs have misunderstood what can be called a GNU package. If they don't assign copyright to the FSF, but want it to still be a GNU package, they just have to declare that they're taking responsibility for licensing enforcement.
- davexunit 10y ago
  >developers don't have to assign copyright to the FSF for it to be an official GNU project This is correct, but it's up to the maintainer to decide if their project will require copyright assignment from all contributors or not. I send patches to a couple of GNU projects, Guile and Guix. Guile requires copyright assignment, Guix does not. Assigning copyright to the FSF is very much unlike assigning copyright to a for-profit company. The terms that you sign and agree to with the FSF are very reasonable and they protect the developer from having the license changed should the FSF be taken over by people that would want to abuse your contributions.
  - avar 10y ago
    As I recall the terms include some phrase like "we might change the license to be similar in spirit to the existing one" which gives FSF and anyone who controls it in the future a lot of wiggle room. E.g. the GPL v2 to v3 transition was enabled by that, with the introduction of patent/"TiVo" clauses. No reason they couldn't make more drastic changes in the future.
    - davexunit 10y ago
      That means that the contributors agreed to license the code as "GPL version 2, or at your option any later version", which means that they are amenable to changes to the GPL. The FSF could not, however, make a GPLv4 that was a proprietary software license or something. I wouldn't have signed copyright assignment forms if that was a possibility. Really, FSF copyright is a very good thing, and you can even do it completely digitally in the US and Germany (used to be that you had to use snail mail to receive forms and send them back). People shouldn't get scared away from contributing to GNU projects that choose copyright assignment. There's no better place to protect the GPL than at the FSF.
      - Addile 10y ago
        And that's where I don't fully agree. There are many projects licenced under "GPL v2 or later" and they don't need copyright assignment. Copyright assignment is huge and opens the door for way too many legal stuff. Also Copyright is a pretty US thing. Law differs and many Countries don't actually allow it. Also since you brought up Getmany already: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_Germany#Transfer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_Germany#Trans... Germany is such a country and even if you were to assign copyright to them it would be legally void to the best of my knowledge. And also other countries that base it on moral rights. Copyright law is very different between countries and way too strong to just transfer for such a use. If they really wanted to, they should have made a license to handle it exactly the way they wanted.
        cyphar 10y ago
supercheetah 10y ago
My impression from that thread is the only problem some of the devs had was assigning copyright to the FSF. They insist on sticking to FSF's principles and in fact will continue to have their code hosted on Savannah because Github isn't Free enough.
Avshalom 10y ago
Ah this looks like the important one: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/nano-devel/2016-05/msg00013.html https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/nano-devel/2016-05/msg000... The current maintainer is/was A) looking to pass on responsibilities B) not get copyright assignment like GNU projects are supposed to so they just decided fuck it.

infodroid 10y ago

I reviewed the discussion but I still can't understand what the controversy is about. According to the following explanatory note from the GNU project, developers don't have to assign copyright to the FSF for it to be an official GNU project: When the developers of a program make it a GNU package, they can decide either to give the copyright to the FSF so it can enforce the GPL for the package, or else to keep the copyright as well as the responsibility for enforcing the GPL. Source: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.en.html --- FYI this is the start of the discussion thread: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/nano-devel/2016-05/msg00012.html https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/nano-devel/2016-05/msg000...

supercheetah 10y ago
Interesting. It looks like the Nano devs have misunderstood what can be called a GNU package. If they don't assign copyright to the FSF, but want it to still be a GNU package, they just have to declare that they're taking responsibility for licensing enforcement.
davexunit 10y ago
>developers don't have to assign copyright to the FSF for it to be an official GNU project This is correct, but it's up to the maintainer to decide if their project will require copyright assignment from all contributors or not. I send patches to a couple of GNU projects, Guile and Guix. Guile requires copyright assignment, Guix does not. Assigning copyright to the FSF is very much unlike assigning copyright to a for-profit company. The terms that you sign and agree to with the FSF are very reasonable and they protect the developer from having the license changed should the FSF be taken over by people that would want to abuse your contributions.
- avar 10y ago
  As I recall the terms include some phrase like "we might change the license to be similar in spirit to the existing one" which gives FSF and anyone who controls it in the future a lot of wiggle room. E.g. the GPL v2 to v3 transition was enabled by that, with the introduction of patent/"TiVo" clauses. No reason they couldn't make more drastic changes in the future.
  - davexunit 10y ago
    That means that the contributors agreed to license the code as "GPL version 2, or at your option any later version", which means that they are amenable to changes to the GPL. The FSF could not, however, make a GPLv4 that was a proprietary software license or something. I wouldn't have signed copyright assignment forms if that was a possibility. Really, FSF copyright is a very good thing, and you can even do it completely digitally in the US and Germany (used to be that you had to use snail mail to receive forms and send them back). People shouldn't get scared away from contributing to GNU projects that choose copyright assignment. There's no better place to protect the GPL than at the FSF.
    - Addile 10y ago
      And that's where I don't fully agree. There are many projects licenced under "GPL v2 or later" and they don't need copyright assignment. Copyright assignment is huge and opens the door for way too many legal stuff. Also Copyright is a pretty US thing. Law differs and many Countries don't actually allow it. Also since you brought up Getmany already: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_Germany#Transfer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_Germany#Trans... Germany is such a country and even if you were to assign copyright to them it would be legally void to the best of my knowledge. And also other countries that base it on moral rights. Copyright law is very different between countries and way too strong to just transfer for such a use. If they really wanted to, they should have made a license to handle it exactly the way they wanted.
      - cyphar 10y ago

supercheetah 10y ago

My impression from that thread is the only problem some of the devs had was assigning copyright to the FSF. They insist on sticking to FSF's principles and in fact will continue to have their code hosted on Savannah because Github isn't Free enough.

Avshalom 10y ago

Ah this looks like the important one: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/nano-devel/2016-05/msg00013.html https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/nano-devel/2016-05/msg000... The current maintainer is/was A) looking to pass on responsibilities B) not get copyright assignment like GNU projects are supposed to so they just decided fuck it.