6 ms·

It makes sense to nearly everyone who has contributed to GNU projects, as GNU makes that a requirement for significant contributions (i.e. those that aren't lik

It makes sense to nearly everyone who has contributed to GNU projects, as GNU makes that a requirement for significant contributions (i.e. those that aren't likely already owned by GNU as trivial and thus derivative changes). Remember that if what you are creating is a derivative work of the original, which it very likely is, you copyright on your portion of the work--if it even exists--is of little value to you outside the context of the project.

garmaine 6y ago
I never sign contributor license agreements. If I wanted a 3rd party to be able to relicense my GPL code, I wouldn't have released it under the GPL.
- julianlam 6y ago
  Hi! I want to respond to you personally, because we did have someone raise a bit of hell about our CAA for these reasons. They did not have any contributed code, however. They were just a vocal third party. In the end, if they have opposition to the CAA, they don't sign it, and we make sure that we don't merge pull requests whose contributors have not signed the CAA. You have a moral opposition to the concept of the CAA or a CLA, and that's perfectly fine, it just means you will not be able to contribute to NodeBB. Unfortunate, but our butts are protected and your rights are not potentially infringed upon.
  - garmaine 6y ago
    Why do you need a CAA/CLA? The common reason given is to have standing in an infringement dispute. But for that you just need some ownership, which you have. The reason for full ownership is to be able to relicense. That’s what I object to, and I don’t see why a project specific group with partial ownership like NodeBB needs that. What protections are you seeking? To be clear though, the context was that you found your own work had included the work of others and THEN went out and sought their copyright assignment. This isn’t someone seeking contribution. I fail to see why they would agree to that.
- ajarmst 6y ago
  One other concern that is important here is that if the need or desire to litigate the license ever occurs, inability to clearly show ownership hampers an effective argument (or at least makes it less clear) and might make the license terms expensive or impossible to enforce. As copyright owner, it's your decision about whether and on what terms you want to participate in a project, but the project does get to decide on what terms it requires of contributors. I'd argue that a strong reluctance to share one's work under fairly common terms in the Open Source community only means that you're not a good candidate for working on such projects. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
  - garmaine 6y ago
    Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t believe you need full ownership to show standing. It would be sufficient to show partial ownership from some of the copyright holders just to establish standing.
    - ajarmst 6y ago
      i'm not competent to explain standing requirements, but I did say that it would be more difficult, not impossible. While I certainly agree that license issuer probably has standing to sue or defend, I also think that any complexity around who owns what would necessarily complicate discovery, potentially add other litigants to the case, and provide an opponent with more colourable arguments that they don't have standing. The goal of litigation is frequently just to make even a doomed case too expensive to continue (far too often! lobby for Anti-SLAPP in your jurisdiction). I'd think complex ownership questions would be a boon for that sort of cynicism.
- ajarmst 6y ago
  I should also mention that there is another remedy to that concern (which I don't necessarily agree is that big of one) is another cultural component of the OSS world: forking. If the party you assigned your copyright to (and remember this would almost always be to a project not an individual), you have the option to carry on (or lobby for other developers to carry on) the project from that point under the GPL, one of whose main points is to guarantee your right to do that. Given the way the community would tend to react to such an attempt, a forked project would almost certainly end up being the new de facto standard.
  - garmaine 6y ago
    I use GPL precisely so that others cannot appropriate the work without contributing back. If I was okay with the outcome you describe, why not just use MIT in the first place?
    - pitay 6y ago
      Because with the GPL you can still obtain the source code for any changes made to your original work if they want to put any software made for it public. GPL'd software is required to have the source available under GPL to anyone it is distributed to. You can merge any of this code back into your work, as it has to be GPL licenced. With the MIT licence they can distribute proprietary software based on your work and not have the source available, as this is not required with the MIT licence. So you have no way to get the changes or improvements other parties have made if they choose not to give them to you. Take what I am saying with a pinch of salt, others can give a better explanation. I'd suggest looking it up yourself.
      - garmaine 6y ago
        If you assign copyright to the other entity (the hypothetical under consideration) they have no obligation to follow the GPL and release sources for their later proprietary additions.

garmaine 6y ago

I never sign contributor license agreements. If I wanted a 3rd party to be able to relicense my GPL code, I wouldn't have released it under the GPL.

julianlam 6y ago
Hi! I want to respond to you personally, because we did have someone raise a bit of hell about our CAA for these reasons. They did not have any contributed code, however. They were just a vocal third party. In the end, if they have opposition to the CAA, they don't sign it, and we make sure that we don't merge pull requests whose contributors have not signed the CAA. You have a moral opposition to the concept of the CAA or a CLA, and that's perfectly fine, it just means you will not be able to contribute to NodeBB. Unfortunate, but our butts are protected and your rights are not potentially infringed upon.
- garmaine 6y ago
  Why do you need a CAA/CLA? The common reason given is to have standing in an infringement dispute. But for that you just need some ownership, which you have. The reason for full ownership is to be able to relicense. That’s what I object to, and I don’t see why a project specific group with partial ownership like NodeBB needs that. What protections are you seeking? To be clear though, the context was that you found your own work had included the work of others and THEN went out and sought their copyright assignment. This isn’t someone seeking contribution. I fail to see why they would agree to that.
ajarmst 6y ago
One other concern that is important here is that if the need or desire to litigate the license ever occurs, inability to clearly show ownership hampers an effective argument (or at least makes it less clear) and might make the license terms expensive or impossible to enforce. As copyright owner, it's your decision about whether and on what terms you want to participate in a project, but the project does get to decide on what terms it requires of contributors. I'd argue that a strong reluctance to share one's work under fairly common terms in the Open Source community only means that you're not a good candidate for working on such projects. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
- garmaine 6y ago
  Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t believe you need full ownership to show standing. It would be sufficient to show partial ownership from some of the copyright holders just to establish standing.
  - ajarmst 6y ago
    i'm not competent to explain standing requirements, but I did say that it would be more difficult, not impossible. While I certainly agree that license issuer probably has standing to sue or defend, I also think that any complexity around who owns what would necessarily complicate discovery, potentially add other litigants to the case, and provide an opponent with more colourable arguments that they don't have standing. The goal of litigation is frequently just to make even a doomed case too expensive to continue (far too often! lobby for Anti-SLAPP in your jurisdiction). I'd think complex ownership questions would be a boon for that sort of cynicism.
ajarmst 6y ago
I should also mention that there is another remedy to that concern (which I don't necessarily agree is that big of one) is another cultural component of the OSS world: forking. If the party you assigned your copyright to (and remember this would almost always be to a project not an individual), you have the option to carry on (or lobby for other developers to carry on) the project from that point under the GPL, one of whose main points is to guarantee your right to do that. Given the way the community would tend to react to such an attempt, a forked project would almost certainly end up being the new de facto standard.
- garmaine 6y ago
  I use GPL precisely so that others cannot appropriate the work without contributing back. If I was okay with the outcome you describe, why not just use MIT in the first place?
  - pitay 6y ago
    Because with the GPL you can still obtain the source code for any changes made to your original work if they want to put any software made for it public. GPL'd software is required to have the source available under GPL to anyone it is distributed to. You can merge any of this code back into your work, as it has to be GPL licenced. With the MIT licence they can distribute proprietary software based on your work and not have the source available, as this is not required with the MIT licence. So you have no way to get the changes or improvements other parties have made if they choose not to give them to you. Take what I am saying with a pinch of salt, others can give a better explanation. I'd suggest looking it up yourself.
    - garmaine 6y ago
      If you assign copyright to the other entity (the hypothetical under consideration) they have no obligation to follow the GPL and release sources for their later proprietary additions.