6 ms·

"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

"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.
        flukus 10y ago
        On the other hand, a lot of their IP (like beauty and the beast) was never really theirs.
        vacri 10y ago
        They have trademarked it, but not copyrighted it. The trademark is a bit overstepping - no-one else can market something as Snow White - but anyone can do the Snow White story, as long as Ms White doesn't look like the Disney artwork.
        vetinari 10y ago
        Those are new works. The old works are supposed to pass to the public domain. And of course, Disney takes heavily FROM the public domain (Aladdin, Pocahontas, Beauty and the Beast, Hunchback of Notre Dame, Hercules, Tarzan, Snow White...)
- dragonwriter 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 Reimplementing after you are sued for copyright violation doesn't get you off the hook for the past violations, including enhanced damages for willful infringement, for which this would seem to be an open and shut case.
  - vacri 10y ago
    What damages would you expect to be paid for freely-provided software?
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      Well, in the unlikely event the contributor chose to register their copyright on a timely basis, statutory damages would apply, independent of actual loss. Of course, since it's a permissive license, you've also got potential downstream commercial infringement to which the unauthorized relicensing is contributory.
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.

"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.
      - flukus 10y ago
        On the other hand, a lot of their IP (like beauty and the beast) was never really theirs.
        vacri 10y ago
        They have trademarked it, but not copyrighted it. The trademark is a bit overstepping - no-one else can market something as Snow White - but anyone can do the Snow White story, as long as Ms White doesn't look like the Disney artwork.
      - vetinari 10y ago
        Those are new works. The old works are supposed to pass to the public domain. And of course, Disney takes heavily FROM the public domain (Aladdin, Pocahontas, Beauty and the Beast, Hunchback of Notre Dame, Hercules, Tarzan, Snow White...)
dragonwriter 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 Reimplementing after you are sued for copyright violation doesn't get you off the hook for the past violations, including enhanced damages for willful infringement, for which this would seem to be an open and shut case.
- vacri 10y ago
  What damages would you expect to be paid for freely-provided software?
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    Well, in the unlikely event the contributor chose to register their copyright on a timely basis, statutory damages would apply, independent of actual loss. Of course, since it's a permissive license, you've also got potential downstream commercial infringement to which the unauthorized relicensing is contributory.

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.