11 ms·

> A "huge win" being enacted by a complete disregard for the copyright holders who were kind enough to contribute to the project. Uh, no. That's not how this w

> A "huge win" being enacted by a complete disregard for the copyright holders who were kind enough to contribute to the project. Uh, no. That's not how this works. OpenSSL cannot change the license without say-so from all of the contributors, unless a CLA was signed. They do have a CLA, but just one granting a license, not one transferring ownership (and the right to relicense). At least, doesn't look like it. OpenSSL emailed everyone with commits on the project (e.g. me) a link to a page where you could say yes/no on this. In most cases this isn't a vote, it's all-or-nothing, though the choices of people with extremely minor (non copyrightable) contributions can be excluded IIRC. IANAL. (There is some discussion below about "if you don't reply we take that as a yes" being okay, though)

caf 10y ago
I would guess that if only a small number of contributors disagree, they'll follow-up by asking those contributors which parts they claim a copyright interest in. Then it can be determined if it's feasible to go forward without those contributions or not.
- Manishearth 10y ago
  Yeah, that's usually how this works. They can also rewrite the code or something, though that's tricky to do correctly.
newman314 10y ago
"if you don't reply we take that as a yes" is NOT ok. That's like saying if you don't reply, you owe me $1mil. Makes no sense how the OpenSSL folks think this is remotely acceptable.
- nitrogen 10y ago
  IANAL but the provisions in law and precedent for orphaned works and for jointly copyrighted works might come into play in that case.
  - flukus 10y ago
    Hey Disney, I'm publishing Micky mouse under the creative commons licence unless you object below within a week. It sounds pretty dodgy on several grounds.
    - nitrogen 10y ago
      Do you have joint copyright with Disney on any Mickey productions?
- kibwen 10y ago
  They're daring you to sue them, in which case you would be required to provide a list of the parts of the code that you claim copyright over, which they could then attempt to excise via black-box reimplementation. It's one of those "ask forgiveness rather than permission" things, and is pretty much how every large project relicensing operates (the exceptions being those projects that require copyright assignment via signed CLA).
  - tomjen3 10y ago
    No need, you can just dmca the various people who use the software in violation of the project.
  - flukus 10y ago
    What happens if the Author dies? Are they and their heirs still the copyright holders? I always assumed anything licensed under the GPL would contain that license post mortem.
    - gsylvie 10y ago
      In USA the copyright holder (which might be the late author's estate) owns the IP for 70 years after death of the original author. After the 70 years have elapsed the work enters the public domain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries'_copyright_lengths https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries'_copyright_l...
      - jacobush 10y ago
        Unless you are immortal, like Disney.
        vacri 10y ago
        To be fair, Disney actively and heavily works their IP. They don't just let it rot in a corner attracting a dribble of royalties.
- ramshorns 10y ago
  Has the post been edited? It seems to say they'll contact all the developers to ask permission.
- DannyBee 10y ago
  ""if you don't reply we take that as a yes" is NOT ok. " Please provide any evidence this is what is happening. I can find none.
  - jwilk 10y ago
    The mail they send to the contributors says: If we do not hear from you, we will assume that you have no objection. (...which is not quite we take that as a yes, but almost.)
  - temprature 10y ago
    The email that's being sent out: https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=149028593819547&w=2 https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=149028593819547&w=2 An article where Rich Salz cites "expert legal counsel" in response to de Raadt questing whether that's legal: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/03/24/openssl_asks_contributors_to_agree_to_apache_license/?page=2 https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/03/24/openssl_asks_contri...
    - DannyBee 10y ago
      Thanks, this is very helpful. This is basically "top people" have told me. It seems ... very very wrong.

caf 10y ago

I would guess that if only a small number of contributors disagree, they'll follow-up by asking those contributors which parts they claim a copyright interest in. Then it can be determined if it's feasible to go forward without those contributions or not.

Manishearth 10y ago
Yeah, that's usually how this works. They can also rewrite the code or something, though that's tricky to do correctly.

newman314 10y ago

"if you don't reply we take that as a yes" is NOT ok. That's like saying if you don't reply, you owe me $1mil. Makes no sense how the OpenSSL folks think this is remotely acceptable.

nitrogen 10y ago
IANAL but the provisions in law and precedent for orphaned works and for jointly copyrighted works might come into play in that case.
- flukus 10y ago
  Hey Disney, I'm publishing Micky mouse under the creative commons licence unless you object below within a week. It sounds pretty dodgy on several grounds.
  - nitrogen 10y ago
    Do you have joint copyright with Disney on any Mickey productions?
kibwen 10y ago
They're daring you to sue them, in which case you would be required to provide a list of the parts of the code that you claim copyright over, which they could then attempt to excise via black-box reimplementation. It's one of those "ask forgiveness rather than permission" things, and is pretty much how every large project relicensing operates (the exceptions being those projects that require copyright assignment via signed CLA).
- tomjen3 10y ago
  No need, you can just dmca the various people who use the software in violation of the project.
- flukus 10y ago
  What happens if the Author dies? Are they and their heirs still the copyright holders? I always assumed anything licensed under the GPL would contain that license post mortem.
  - gsylvie 10y ago
    In USA the copyright holder (which might be the late author's estate) owns the IP for 70 years after death of the original author. After the 70 years have elapsed the work enters the public domain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries'_copyright_lengths https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries'_copyright_l...
    - jacobush 10y ago
      Unless you are immortal, like Disney.
      - vacri 10y ago
        To be fair, Disney actively and heavily works their IP. They don't just let it rot in a corner attracting a dribble of royalties.
ramshorns 10y ago
Has the post been edited? It seems to say they'll contact all the developers to ask permission.
DannyBee 10y ago
""if you don't reply we take that as a yes" is NOT ok. " Please provide any evidence this is what is happening. I can find none.
- jwilk 10y ago
  The mail they send to the contributors says: If we do not hear from you, we will assume that you have no objection. (...which is not quite we take that as a yes, but almost.)
- temprature 10y ago
  The email that's being sent out: https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=149028593819547&w=2 https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=149028593819547&w=2 An article where Rich Salz cites "expert legal counsel" in response to de Raadt questing whether that's legal: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/03/24/openssl_asks_contributors_to_agree_to_apache_license/?page=2 https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/03/24/openssl_asks_contri...
  - DannyBee 10y ago
    Thanks, this is very helpful. This is basically "top people" have told me. It seems ... very very wrong.