7 ms·

But if a or the driving force of a project takes things elsewhere, the users will eventually follow. If the disagreement was over GNU's insistence to require as

by cm3 10y ago

But if a or the driving force of a project takes things elsewhere, the users will eventually follow. If the disagreement was over GNU's insistence to require assigning copyright to the FSF, then I can fully understand the reluctance. It's the same reason many contributors cannot officially submit patches to side projects of Google employees, Ubuntu projects, etc.

klakier 10y ago
Do you know that according to copy rights, open source projects are mess. Nobody tried it in the court, but if some developer contributing to project went to court saying "This part of code is mine, I don't want it to be modified by other people", then the project could be in trouble. Nobody tried that (yet). That's why some OS projects require signing Developer Certificates of Origin etc.
- adrianN 10y ago
  No, the courts have already handled cases around the GPL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Legal_status https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Leg...
  - klakier 10y ago
    These are about violation of GPL, none of the suits was filed by individual developer who was contributing to the code base. Show me better examples.
    - mikegerwitz 10y ago
      > none of the suits was filed by individual developer who was contributing to the code base (You're not implying otherwise, but this seems like a good place to put this comment.) An individual developer can bring a case against a distributor violating the GPL if they can prove that their code was involved in the violation. A good example are the contributors who brought a Linux (kernel) case against VMWare: https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2016/feb/29/vmware-hearing/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2016/feb/29/vmware-hearing/
    - cm3 10y ago
      > none of the suits was filed by individual developer who was contributing to the code base Isn't that what actually happened in the GPL-Violations.org project with netfilter?
      - klakier 10y ago
        It makes me happy to see this. But still I'd advise using developer agreements, if you want the control of the project. And correct license of course!
        cm3 10y ago
        And it's proof that like Oracle suing Google over 10 lines of code, it's enough for one or more contributors to claim ownership of some (small) part as a basis to take, say, Netgear to court. Thus you don't necessarily need to assign copyright over to a single person or organization.
- infodroid 10y ago
  The way I see it, if you contribute to a project for example by sending a patch to it by email or pull request then you agree to be bound by the license. Even if there is no copyright assignment. Otherwise you would not have the right to modify the software to write your patch in the first place. This just seems like common sense to me.
  - thomasahle 10y ago
    The problem is if the maintainer wants to change the license (Like GPL2 -> GPL3). That's only possible if the contributors have signed over copyright, or the maintainer can track down every person who ever sent a patch, and get them to agree.
    - nnutter 10y ago
      I don't think GPL2 -> GPL3 is a valid example of that. Usually it is to dual-license with a non-open-source license or some other incompatible open-source licenses. The GPL "upgrade" clause, > Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
      - bluejekyll 10y ago
        I think you missed the if clause: > If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", I'm no lawyer, but I think the source has to mention that explicitly. So it's not true of ALL gpl projects. In this case though you are right because nano, it appears, specifies it's license as: > License: GNU General Public License v3 or later So, while true in this case it's not always true (see Linux kernel license, GPLv2, no upgrade).
        cyphar 10y ago
        Most GPL projects do this. I don't have access to my box, but if you did a search for licenses you'd find many use "or later" (and in fact a lot of code within Linux uses "or later" as well). So practically it's a very common upgrade path. And some people will actually email every contributor to ask to relicense the code.
- klakier 10y ago
  What I meant here, is not that GPL was not tested in court. Just imagine situation of one of the authors saying: I no longer want to see my code on the Internet. Let's say he contributed 30% of the code. Now what? He is the author, he has the right to do it. In most cases developers sign no agreements when their patches are merged.
  - cm3 10y ago
    I don't fully understand. You cannot take back your public contribution, just as you cannot ask the patent office to erase the patent from all records and have everyone aware of it forget about it, and remove each and all references that build on that patent. The world would be a much different place if smart people in the past hadn't invented Copyright and Patenting, which both are mostly being misused and are not used to foster innovation. Back then it was normal to hold onto secrets and patents and copyright were invented to incentivize publication under well-defined and not too long exclusivity periods after which other can freely improve on it. But today we have 20 year patent monopolies and Disney copyright absurdity.
  - cyphar 10y ago
    > I no longer want to see my code on the Internet. Such a statement doesn't make sense. Not to mention that you can't retroactively un-license something (unless the license has a termination clause). Free software licenses do not have termination clauses (by definition, the FSF won't approve them if they do because it restricts practical freedom). Though I'm fairly sure it would count as an "open source" license under the OSI definition. > In most cases developers sign no agreements when their patches are merged. If you submitted code under the DCO, you've signed an affadavit saying that you have the right to license the code and that it is licensed under the license of the project. For copyleft projects, you don't even need that (if you've distributed it then you've implicitly licensed it under the original license). But in either case, once you've licensed you code under some license then you can't terminate that license if it's a free software license.
- cyphar 10y ago
  If the code is under a copyleft license, then distributing a modified copy is only possible by complying with the license. So at the very least, you can get the code under that license. Non-copyleft licenses might fall into a worse trap here, but that's why we have the DCO. An affidavit is more than enough.
ArneBab 10y ago
It’s the current maintainer who wants copyright assignment. He does not want to hand over the project to someone who refuses to lead it in a way consistent with his vision. Rather walk more slowly than walk in the wrong direction.
- cm3 10y ago
  Isn't that even worse then? I mean, the FSF has a good track record and less people would object to assigning copyright over to the org.
  - timv 10y ago
    As far as I can tell, the current maintainer wants copyright assigned to the FSF. He is not willing to hand the project over to someone who isn't willing to do that. The proposed new maintainer is not willing to assign copyright to the FSF, and so seems to be forking the project instead. But it's not 100% clear exactly what's going on.
willnorris 10y ago
Just to be clear on this, Google projects (including side projects of Google employees) do not require copyright assignment in the way that FSF projects to. They require an explicit copyright license, but the author retains the copyright. Full details at https://cla.developers.google.com/about https://cla.developers.google.com/about
- cm3 10y ago
  Interesting, thanks for the correction. Reading that page, it appears that this due to US IP ownership agreements for employees. Is that correct? If so, why isn't there an exception for personal-time-only contributions by single developers, or at least those outside a jurisdiction like the US where an employer may own each and all of your ideas and intellectual output? To be clear, I haven't lived or worked in the US, so this is all foreign and weird to me.
  - jtuente 10y ago
    US Copyright defaults to the author, it is only with employee contracts/agreements that one can forego the default and assign to the company. Something like the google license is there to help with making a clear distinction between google-owned copyright, author-owned copyright and author-owned copyright permanently licensed to google. Meaning that google will never be required to pay any kind of royalties for the author's work even after they leave employment at google.
    - decode 10y ago
      > US Copyright defaults to the author, it is only with employee contracts/agreements that one can forego the default and assign to the company. I'm pretty sure this is not true. In fact, it's the opposite of how it actually works. There's an explicit exception in the Copyright Act for a "work made for hire". If you're creating a opyrighted work for an employer, the employer is always the author of the work at the moment of inception. http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf
  - tracker1 10y ago
cyphar 10y ago
FSF copyright assignment is done such that they state they will always distribute your code under a copyleft license. So it's not an issue like with Canonical (which asks for the right to make copyleft code proprietary). Copyright assignment is important if you register your copyright to make strong enforcement possible. US copyright law doesn't deal with communities of contributors very well, in terms of those copyright holders exercising their rights.

by cm3 10y ago

klakier 10y ago

Do you know that according to copy rights, open source projects are mess. Nobody tried it in the court, but if some developer contributing to project went to court saying "This part of code is mine, I don't want it to be modified by other people", then the project could be in trouble. Nobody tried that (yet). That's why some OS projects require signing Developer Certificates of Origin etc.

adrianN 10y ago
No, the courts have already handled cases around the GPL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Legal_status https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Leg...
- klakier 10y ago
  These are about violation of GPL, none of the suits was filed by individual developer who was contributing to the code base. Show me better examples.
  - mikegerwitz 10y ago
    > none of the suits was filed by individual developer who was contributing to the code base (You're not implying otherwise, but this seems like a good place to put this comment.) An individual developer can bring a case against a distributor violating the GPL if they can prove that their code was involved in the violation. A good example are the contributors who brought a Linux (kernel) case against VMWare: https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2016/feb/29/vmware-hearing/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2016/feb/29/vmware-hearing/
  - cm3 10y ago
    > none of the suits was filed by individual developer who was contributing to the code base Isn't that what actually happened in the GPL-Violations.org project with netfilter?
    - klakier 10y ago
      It makes me happy to see this. But still I'd advise using developer agreements, if you want the control of the project. And correct license of course!
      - cm3 10y ago
        And it's proof that like Oracle suing Google over 10 lines of code, it's enough for one or more contributors to claim ownership of some (small) part as a basis to take, say, Netgear to court. Thus you don't necessarily need to assign copyright over to a single person or organization.
infodroid 10y ago
The way I see it, if you contribute to a project for example by sending a patch to it by email or pull request then you agree to be bound by the license. Even if there is no copyright assignment. Otherwise you would not have the right to modify the software to write your patch in the first place. This just seems like common sense to me.
- thomasahle 10y ago
  The problem is if the maintainer wants to change the license (Like GPL2 -> GPL3). That's only possible if the contributors have signed over copyright, or the maintainer can track down every person who ever sent a patch, and get them to agree.
  - nnutter 10y ago
    I don't think GPL2 -> GPL3 is a valid example of that. Usually it is to dual-license with a non-open-source license or some other incompatible open-source licenses. The GPL "upgrade" clause, > Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
    - bluejekyll 10y ago
      I think you missed the if clause: > If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", I'm no lawyer, but I think the source has to mention that explicitly. So it's not true of ALL gpl projects. In this case though you are right because nano, it appears, specifies it's license as: > License: GNU General Public License v3 or later So, while true in this case it's not always true (see Linux kernel license, GPLv2, no upgrade).
      - cyphar 10y ago
        Most GPL projects do this. I don't have access to my box, but if you did a search for licenses you'd find many use "or later" (and in fact a lot of code within Linux uses "or later" as well). So practically it's a very common upgrade path. And some people will actually email every contributor to ask to relicense the code.
klakier 10y ago
What I meant here, is not that GPL was not tested in court. Just imagine situation of one of the authors saying: I no longer want to see my code on the Internet. Let's say he contributed 30% of the code. Now what? He is the author, he has the right to do it. In most cases developers sign no agreements when their patches are merged.
- cm3 10y ago
  I don't fully understand. You cannot take back your public contribution, just as you cannot ask the patent office to erase the patent from all records and have everyone aware of it forget about it, and remove each and all references that build on that patent. The world would be a much different place if smart people in the past hadn't invented Copyright and Patenting, which both are mostly being misused and are not used to foster innovation. Back then it was normal to hold onto secrets and patents and copyright were invented to incentivize publication under well-defined and not too long exclusivity periods after which other can freely improve on it. But today we have 20 year patent monopolies and Disney copyright absurdity.
- cyphar 10y ago
  > I no longer want to see my code on the Internet. Such a statement doesn't make sense. Not to mention that you can't retroactively un-license something (unless the license has a termination clause). Free software licenses do not have termination clauses (by definition, the FSF won't approve them if they do because it restricts practical freedom). Though I'm fairly sure it would count as an "open source" license under the OSI definition. > In most cases developers sign no agreements when their patches are merged. If you submitted code under the DCO, you've signed an affadavit saying that you have the right to license the code and that it is licensed under the license of the project. For copyleft projects, you don't even need that (if you've distributed it then you've implicitly licensed it under the original license). But in either case, once you've licensed you code under some license then you can't terminate that license if it's a free software license.
cyphar 10y ago
If the code is under a copyleft license, then distributing a modified copy is only possible by complying with the license. So at the very least, you can get the code under that license. Non-copyleft licenses might fall into a worse trap here, but that's why we have the DCO. An affidavit is more than enough.

ArneBab 10y ago

It’s the current maintainer who wants copyright assignment. He does not want to hand over the project to someone who refuses to lead it in a way consistent with his vision. Rather walk more slowly than walk in the wrong direction.

cm3 10y ago
Isn't that even worse then? I mean, the FSF has a good track record and less people would object to assigning copyright over to the org.
- timv 10y ago
  As far as I can tell, the current maintainer wants copyright assigned to the FSF. He is not willing to hand the project over to someone who isn't willing to do that. The proposed new maintainer is not willing to assign copyright to the FSF, and so seems to be forking the project instead. But it's not 100% clear exactly what's going on.

willnorris 10y ago

Just to be clear on this, Google projects (including side projects of Google employees) do not require copyright assignment in the way that FSF projects to. They require an explicit copyright license, but the author retains the copyright. Full details at https://cla.developers.google.com/about https://cla.developers.google.com/about

cm3 10y ago
Interesting, thanks for the correction. Reading that page, it appears that this due to US IP ownership agreements for employees. Is that correct? If so, why isn't there an exception for personal-time-only contributions by single developers, or at least those outside a jurisdiction like the US where an employer may own each and all of your ideas and intellectual output? To be clear, I haven't lived or worked in the US, so this is all foreign and weird to me.
- jtuente 10y ago
  US Copyright defaults to the author, it is only with employee contracts/agreements that one can forego the default and assign to the company. Something like the google license is there to help with making a clear distinction between google-owned copyright, author-owned copyright and author-owned copyright permanently licensed to google. Meaning that google will never be required to pay any kind of royalties for the author's work even after they leave employment at google.
  - decode 10y ago
    > US Copyright defaults to the author, it is only with employee contracts/agreements that one can forego the default and assign to the company. I'm pretty sure this is not true. In fact, it's the opposite of how it actually works. There's an explicit exception in the Copyright Act for a "work made for hire". If you're creating a opyrighted work for an employer, the employer is always the author of the work at the moment of inception. http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf
- tracker1 10y ago

cyphar 10y ago

FSF copyright assignment is done such that they state they will always distribute your code under a copyleft license. So it's not an issue like with Canonical (which asks for the right to make copyleft code proprietary). Copyright assignment is important if you register your copyright to make strong enforcement possible. US copyright law doesn't deal with communities of contributors very well, in terms of those copyright holders exercising their rights.