5 ms·

I'm somewhat surprised to hear that many GNU projects have copyright-assignment policies in place. That seems to go against what I used to think the FSF was all

I'm somewhat surprised to hear that many GNU projects have copyright-assignment policies in place. That seems to go against what I used to think the FSF was all about. But after watching videos of Linus on GPL v3, it seems that the FSF is all about exerting control, despite having "Freedom" in their name.

Macha 5y ago
Given they use GPL-x-or-later licenses and are all the authority needed to designate something as GPL 4 or 3.1 or whatever, if they wanted to go evil to utilise their control they already could have. It's not like they're opposed on principal to new license versions to benefit specific projects either, e.g. GFDL 1.3 has the "Wikipedia can relicense to Creative Commons" exception
- invokestatic 5y ago
  The key difference to me is the “or later” part. So even if the FSF releases an evil version 3.1 or whatever, everyone could just continue to use version 3 instead. Whereas if the FSF owns all of the intellectual property, they can relicense it in its entirety to strictly 3.1.
  - monocasa 5y ago
    I think you're on the right track, they just view protecting the FSF as something that needs to happen regardless, and it can therefore be relied on. Then if there's a horrible flaw with a previous GPL, they can at least force their projects to the new version.
  - ARandomerDude 5y ago
    I don't understand why your original comment was flagged. I went and watched one of the Q&A videos from Linus Torvalds you mentioned and it was very educational. Thanks for your comment, even though the HN comment cancellers hated it.
  - ignoranceprior 5y ago
    If the evil version 3.1 is more restrictive than previous versions, then you are right to say people could just ignore it. However, if evil version 3.1 is more permissive, for an extreme example say they changed it to a verbatim copy of WTFPL, then there would be nothing stopping people from creating a proprietary fork of the project, the very thing copyleft was designed to prevent.
    - squiggleblaz 5y ago
      Would they be in breach of contract if they did so, or would some other legal recourse exist? The licence explicitly says: "The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the GNU General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns." A non-copyleft licence would not be similar in spirit. I could certainly imagine some proprietary code loving coalition seeking to control the FSF after RMS's eventual demise, so that they could create a new, non-copyleft licence. GPL 3 is aware of such concern: it says, "If the Program specifies that a proxy can decide which future versions of the GNU General Public License can be used, that proxy's public statement of acceptance of a version permanently authorizes you to choose that version for the Program", apparently trying to provide an alternative path to allow Linus Torvalds to accept only the versions he wants to accept.
  - Macha 5y ago
    There's nothing stopping the next release of an application that has historically been GPL 2 or later being released as GPL 3.1 only, however? They can't go back and take back the existing licenses to existing versions (the whole non-revocable term of the license) so other users can still give you those versions under those licenses even if the FSF decided they didn't want to themselves.
    - squiggleblaz 5y ago
      The following is crafted deliberately as something of a worst case scenario; I don't think it is even remotely likely. So GCC is 3.1 or later. RMS dies and Google, Facebook etc get in control of the FSF: after all, they are major contributors and beneficiaries. While this is going down, fearing the badness around the corner, the GCC project continues work on GCC under 3.1 only (and attempts to stop it, unsuccessfully). The FSF releases 4.0 which is a long and wordy version of 3 clause BSD. Google now forks the latest version of GCC before the project relicensed it. There are two versions continuing: Google GCC under GPL4+ and GCC GCC under GPL3.1. The community doesn't entirely know which branch to contribute to and amidst the mire all the new features of C++30 get added to a proprietary fork of Clang. In general, free software gets regarded as dusty and old and most development happens on compilers people bought.
      - pjmlp 5y ago
        No need for that. https://github.com/android/ndk/wiki/Changelog-r18 https://github.com/android/ndk/wiki/Changelog-r18 https://fuchsia.dev/ https://fuchsia.dev/
msla 5y ago
The FSF is about protecting freedom, which includes being able to sue people who infringe on that freedom. A slogan without enforcement is toothless, and businesses only respect teeth.
Wxc2jjJmST9XWWL 5y ago
To anyone wondering, pretty sure "Linus talking about GPLv3" here refers to Linus at Debconf in 2014 https://youtu.be/5PmHRSeA2c8?t=2840 https://youtu.be/5PmHRSeA2c8?t=2840 (from there to 56:51 it's about open source licenses)
- duxup 5y ago
  Thank you. That was helpful.
globular-toast 5y ago
There are libertarians and anarchists who think that freedom is having no laws at all. But what happens when a huge chemical company starts dumping waste on your lawn? Who do you call? They are free to do what they want, aren't they? Individual liberties can only go so far. If we want freedom as a society it is necessary to restrict individual freedom at the point that it begins to affect the freedoms and rights of others. In practice that means, unfortunately, governments, police and armies are necessary. Permissive licences are idealistic. Copyleft/FSF-style licences are pragmatic.
- superjan 5y ago
  I think your point is that copyleft creates extra value because those extending it are incentivized to contribute their extensions. But in the case of gcc as compared to llvm, permissive licensing looks to be at least as successful. An issue with copyleft that you need to commit to providing the source beforehand. If you are allowed to choose afterwards, you don’t need to ask in advance, and it’s easier to make the case that upstreaming your patches is in the organization’s best interest. And yes I know copyleft only requires only providing code to your users, but in practice the organization assumes that means the distribution can’t be enforced.
- yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago
  Libertarians still believe in property rights and a sufficient legal system that the answer to > But what happens when a huge chemical company starts dumping waste on your lawn? is "sue them to oblivion".
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    But when they start dumping it on the common meadow behind your property, or the street in front of it, you can't do shit because you don't own those... And libertarians only believe in a legal system sufficient to protect property rights and nothing else. They should call themselves selfitarians, because what they're all about isn't "liberty", but selfishness.

Macha 5y ago

Given they use GPL-x-or-later licenses and are all the authority needed to designate something as GPL 4 or 3.1 or whatever, if they wanted to go evil to utilise their control they already could have. It's not like they're opposed on principal to new license versions to benefit specific projects either, e.g. GFDL 1.3 has the "Wikipedia can relicense to Creative Commons" exception

invokestatic 5y ago
The key difference to me is the “or later” part. So even if the FSF releases an evil version 3.1 or whatever, everyone could just continue to use version 3 instead. Whereas if the FSF owns all of the intellectual property, they can relicense it in its entirety to strictly 3.1.
- monocasa 5y ago
  I think you're on the right track, they just view protecting the FSF as something that needs to happen regardless, and it can therefore be relied on. Then if there's a horrible flaw with a previous GPL, they can at least force their projects to the new version.
- ARandomerDude 5y ago
  I don't understand why your original comment was flagged. I went and watched one of the Q&A videos from Linus Torvalds you mentioned and it was very educational. Thanks for your comment, even though the HN comment cancellers hated it.
- ignoranceprior 5y ago
  If the evil version 3.1 is more restrictive than previous versions, then you are right to say people could just ignore it. However, if evil version 3.1 is more permissive, for an extreme example say they changed it to a verbatim copy of WTFPL, then there would be nothing stopping people from creating a proprietary fork of the project, the very thing copyleft was designed to prevent.
  - squiggleblaz 5y ago
    Would they be in breach of contract if they did so, or would some other legal recourse exist? The licence explicitly says: "The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the GNU General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns." A non-copyleft licence would not be similar in spirit. I could certainly imagine some proprietary code loving coalition seeking to control the FSF after RMS's eventual demise, so that they could create a new, non-copyleft licence. GPL 3 is aware of such concern: it says, "If the Program specifies that a proxy can decide which future versions of the GNU General Public License can be used, that proxy's public statement of acceptance of a version permanently authorizes you to choose that version for the Program", apparently trying to provide an alternative path to allow Linus Torvalds to accept only the versions he wants to accept.
- Macha 5y ago
  There's nothing stopping the next release of an application that has historically been GPL 2 or later being released as GPL 3.1 only, however? They can't go back and take back the existing licenses to existing versions (the whole non-revocable term of the license) so other users can still give you those versions under those licenses even if the FSF decided they didn't want to themselves.
  - squiggleblaz 5y ago
    The following is crafted deliberately as something of a worst case scenario; I don't think it is even remotely likely. So GCC is 3.1 or later. RMS dies and Google, Facebook etc get in control of the FSF: after all, they are major contributors and beneficiaries. While this is going down, fearing the badness around the corner, the GCC project continues work on GCC under 3.1 only (and attempts to stop it, unsuccessfully). The FSF releases 4.0 which is a long and wordy version of 3 clause BSD. Google now forks the latest version of GCC before the project relicensed it. There are two versions continuing: Google GCC under GPL4+ and GCC GCC under GPL3.1. The community doesn't entirely know which branch to contribute to and amidst the mire all the new features of C++30 get added to a proprietary fork of Clang. In general, free software gets regarded as dusty and old and most development happens on compilers people bought.
    - pjmlp 5y ago
      No need for that. https://github.com/android/ndk/wiki/Changelog-r18 https://github.com/android/ndk/wiki/Changelog-r18 https://fuchsia.dev/ https://fuchsia.dev/

msla 5y ago

The FSF is about protecting freedom, which includes being able to sue people who infringe on that freedom. A slogan without enforcement is toothless, and businesses only respect teeth.

Wxc2jjJmST9XWWL 5y ago

To anyone wondering, pretty sure "Linus talking about GPLv3" here refers to Linus at Debconf in 2014 https://youtu.be/5PmHRSeA2c8?t=2840 https://youtu.be/5PmHRSeA2c8?t=2840 (from there to 56:51 it's about open source licenses)

duxup 5y ago
Thank you. That was helpful.

globular-toast 5y ago

There are libertarians and anarchists who think that freedom is having no laws at all. But what happens when a huge chemical company starts dumping waste on your lawn? Who do you call? They are free to do what they want, aren't they? Individual liberties can only go so far. If we want freedom as a society it is necessary to restrict individual freedom at the point that it begins to affect the freedoms and rights of others. In practice that means, unfortunately, governments, police and armies are necessary. Permissive licences are idealistic. Copyleft/FSF-style licences are pragmatic.

superjan 5y ago
I think your point is that copyleft creates extra value because those extending it are incentivized to contribute their extensions. But in the case of gcc as compared to llvm, permissive licensing looks to be at least as successful. An issue with copyleft that you need to commit to providing the source beforehand. If you are allowed to choose afterwards, you don’t need to ask in advance, and it’s easier to make the case that upstreaming your patches is in the organization’s best interest. And yes I know copyleft only requires only providing code to your users, but in practice the organization assumes that means the distribution can’t be enforced.
yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago
Libertarians still believe in property rights and a sufficient legal system that the answer to > But what happens when a huge chemical company starts dumping waste on your lawn? is "sue them to oblivion".
- CRConrad 5y ago
  But when they start dumping it on the common meadow behind your property, or the street in front of it, you can't do shit because you don't own those... And libertarians only believe in a legal system sufficient to protect property rights and nothing else. They should call themselves selfitarians, because what they're all about isn't "liberty", but selfishness.