6 ms·
> I've always wondered how you could "contribute" to an FSF project when it was clear that your "contribution" ended up as 100% their work. The copyright assig
by jordigh 9y ago
> I've always wondered how you could "contribute" to an FSF project when it was clear that your "contribution" ended up as 100% their work.
The copyright assignment papers you write aren't as unilateral as you might think. It doesn't say "this belongs to the FSF now, none of it is for you." They're fairly clear in the language and say that the FSF will defend your software and keep it free for everyone, including of course yourself. It's an exchange: you give them your copyright, in return they will use your copyright to forever defend your software from becoming non-free. So your software will always be available to everyone, including yourself. You also only have to sign them once ever; it's not like they require new papers for each contribution you make.
Oh, and you also get a sticker, I think. :-) Due to some legal finnagling, since you're signing your copyright away as part of a contract, you need to receive something of tangible value in return. I think that's why you get back a sticker (or maybe it was dollar bill, I forget).
I don't think the FSF has ever gone to court defending copyleft, but that's not entirely the point. A good weapon can be effective as self-defense merely as a deterrent. It doesn't necessarily have to be fired. Also, the FSF always exhausts all other means to bring about GPL compliance and considers legal action a means of absolutely last resort.
- adekok 9y ago> The copyright assignment papers you write aren't as unilateral as you might think. It means you are prohibited from using your own code except as how the FSF sees fit. That's what copyright assignment means. So if you want to take your code and contribute it to a BSD licensed project? Nope. FSF won't allow that. Or use it in a commercial product? Nope. FSF won't allow that. You can use it in a GPL product, so long as you keep the FSF copyright. > A good weapon can be effective as self-defense merely as a deterrent. Sure. And what about Samba? Nothing prevents the Samba team from joining together collectively and suing someone for violating their license. The fact that other people have contributed small pieces to the code doesn't matter. A GPL license violation is still a violation of the code they own. e.g my own project: FreeRADIUS. At this point, I've written at least half of the code. If there's a licence violation, I don't need anyone else's permission (or copyright assignment) to go after the violators. So what, exactly benefit do I gain by submitting code to the FSF, and assigning copyright?
- mikegerwitz 9y ago> It means you are prohibited from using your own code except as how the FSF sees fit. That's what copyright assignment means. The FSF copyright assignment grants you back the right to do what you wish with your code, including sell exceptions. > So what, exactly benefit do I gain by submitting code to the FSF, and assigning copyright? Because they'll enforce the GPL on your behalf. I assigned copyright for my GNU project to the FSF for that reason: I have no resources for enforcement. Nor do most people. > e.g my own project: FreeRADIUS. At this point, I've written at least half of the code. If there's a licence violation, I don't need anyone else's permission (or copyright assignment) to go after the violators. If there's a violation with _your code_. If someone uses a portion of your code you don't have copyright over, you have no standing. And _this_ is why the FSF wants full copyright over Emacs.
- adekok 9y ago> If someone uses a portion of your code you don't have copyright over, Then it's not my code, and I don't have rights on it, do I?
- jhanschoo 9y agoI hope parent commentor clarifies this: do you still get to claim a fork of your contributed code as copyrighted to yourself? The standing problem goes both ways; if you distributed your fork but you had licensed it from the FSF, won't you lack standing from unauthorized use?