4 ms·

This also comes on the back of the .NET Foundation now requiring new projects to assign their intellectual property, lock, stock, and barrel, to the foundation

This also comes on the back of the .NET Foundation now requiring new projects to assign their intellectual property, lock, stock, and barrel, to the foundation itself. You can no longer simply contribute code to the foundation - it has to own it now.

pjc50 5y ago
Not an unusual requirement, it's the same as the "bastion of Free Software", the FSF. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.en.html
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- my123 5y ago
  + code licensed to the .NET Foundation is released under a MIT license anyway, so that it can be used commercially by anybody.
- hermitdev 5y ago
  Isn't this very common for large projects? Solves the future problem of potential relicensing, doesn't it? Of having to track down potentially 10's of thousands of contributors that may be hard to find (or even dead) to get their consent?
  - matheusmoreira 5y ago
    > Solves the future problem of potential relicensing, doesn't it? Yeah, by giving the foundation all the power it needs to relicense it however it wants. > Of having to track down potentially 10's of thousands of contributors that may be hard to find (or even dead) to get their consent? That's the ideal situation. Make the copyright stuff so hard no one will ever bother trying to take over a project. Linux kernel does this. It will never be licensed as anything other than GPLv2 because it's virtually impossible to obtain the consent of all developers who ever contributed to it. The more Linux grows, the more people contribute to it, the stronger this protection becomes.
    - ChrisLomont 5y ago
      >Make the copyright stuff so hard no one will ever bother trying to take over a project. Also means if the license ever loses a legal case then the project will always be susceptible to that flaw since it cannot be corrected. Think of a license as code. It currently works, but tomorrow you may find a serious bug, or, in the case of law, laws change outside the project, making a serious bug. Now you cannot ever fix it. And, in common cases, it protects the project from contributors wishing to remove their contribution later, breaking the project. Linus could get a brain tumor and decide to revoke his contributions to the Linux kernel. Or his heirs could do it, since by law they get his copyrights, including all the code he ever contributed. Guess what that would do. Or any contributor to Linux can do it. 10,000 legal minefields is not a good way to run a project.
      - matheusmoreira 5y ago
        Yeah, I assumed Linux developers wouldn't actually want to hurt the project they contributed their code to. Linux is not protected from that. Another example: one day the copyright protection of Linux code is going to run out. That'll probably be a very fun day. > 10,000 legal minefields is not a good way to run a project. Agreed. Honestly I think these licenses shouldn't even exist to begin with. Copyright needs to be abolished.
  - throwaway19937 5y ago
    One issue that CLAs solve is the problem of copyright termination after the death of the author; see (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/203 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/203). DannyBee is an open source lawyer, his comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18148727 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18148727) gives some other advantages of CLAs.
- Rapzid 5y ago
  And I wouldn't be surprised if this in response to what happened with identity server.
  - homarp 5y ago
    care to give some links about "what happened with identity server" ? is that https://leastprivilege.com/2020/10/01/the-future-of-identityserver/ https://leastprivilege.com/2020/10/01/the-future-of-identity... ?
    - Rapzid 5y ago
      Yes, that's it. It was(is?) a .Net Foundation project that was included in ASP.NET Core starter templates. The maintainers decided to go non-FOSS for the future. Interestingly though, there seemed to be no talk or discussion of finding new maintainers for the .Net Foundation project. Microsoft decided to update their templates for the upcoming .Net 6 to use the new, non FOSS identity server project(despite their being no real need for any identity server in these setups, and despite it no longer being FOSS). Even more strange(coming from other FOSS platform communities) was how much shilling for Duende IdentityServer, and by Duende, was occurring in this thread discussing the development(buckle up): https://github.com/dotnet/aspnetcore/issues/32494 https://github.com/dotnet/aspnetcore/issues/32494 . Was really strange for a FOSS community to not be discussing the road forward for FOSS, but to be making arguments like "the license isn't that expensive" and etc. All this time the project is still listed as a .Net Foundation project: https://dotnetfoundation.org/projects/identityserver https://dotnetfoundation.org/projects/identityserver . I was somewhat surprised when looking into the .Net Foundation rules that they don't require turning over the project in any way to the community or foundation. I'm wondering now if MS was just going along with the easy path to avoid even more drama while the dust settles and they shore up foundation rules to prevent this from happening in the future.
- detaro 5y ago
  Kind of unusual, nowadays CLAs are very often not full copyright assignments.
- Aaronontheweb 5y ago
  The FSF isn't run by full-time employees of a for-profit megacap company that also owns the runtime and package distribution system the projects use though. It's also not the promise the foundation made when it first began soliciting projects to join it.
gortok 5y ago
This is incorrect. > Assignment and Contribution Models. The .NET Foundation uses either an assignment model or a contribution model for on-boarding new projects. Under the assignment model, a project transfers ownership of the copyright to the .NET Foundation. Under the contribution model, a project retains ownership of the copyright, but grants the .NET Foundation a broad license to the project’s code and other intellectual property. The project also confirms that the project’s submissions to .NET Foundation are its own original work (there are also instructions for any third party materials that might be included). They accept both models (Contribution and Assignment). https://dotnetfoundation.org/projects/submit https://dotnetfoundation.org/projects/submit
- Aaronontheweb 5y ago
  Looks like you're right - they removed that option and added it back: https://github.com/dotnet-foundation/projects/commit/7debb1579bbfe4c1469b0c89cdc8f1ce19ff8610 https://github.com/dotnet-foundation/projects/commit/7debb15...
  - gortok 5y ago
    The PR that removed the Contribution model was only merged for 2 hours before it was reverted: https://github.com/dotnet-foundation/projects/issues/122 https://github.com/dotnet-foundation/projects/issues/122
    - Aaronontheweb 5y ago
      And it was never discussed nor has it ever really been revisited since, as you point out in your own comments on that issue. This is part of the larger issue of how the DFN interacts (or lack thereof) with its own member projects and usually only lets us know about changes after they're announced
achandlerwhite 5y ago
I don't believe this is currently true. The contribution model is there. I even recently had a PR accepted to clarify the language on the submission page and form.

pjc50 5y ago

Not an unusual requirement, it's the same as the "bastion of Free Software", the FSF. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.en.html

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
my123 5y ago
+ code licensed to the .NET Foundation is released under a MIT license anyway, so that it can be used commercially by anybody.
hermitdev 5y ago
Isn't this very common for large projects? Solves the future problem of potential relicensing, doesn't it? Of having to track down potentially 10's of thousands of contributors that may be hard to find (or even dead) to get their consent?
- matheusmoreira 5y ago
  > Solves the future problem of potential relicensing, doesn't it? Yeah, by giving the foundation all the power it needs to relicense it however it wants. > Of having to track down potentially 10's of thousands of contributors that may be hard to find (or even dead) to get their consent? That's the ideal situation. Make the copyright stuff so hard no one will ever bother trying to take over a project. Linux kernel does this. It will never be licensed as anything other than GPLv2 because it's virtually impossible to obtain the consent of all developers who ever contributed to it. The more Linux grows, the more people contribute to it, the stronger this protection becomes.
  - ChrisLomont 5y ago
    >Make the copyright stuff so hard no one will ever bother trying to take over a project. Also means if the license ever loses a legal case then the project will always be susceptible to that flaw since it cannot be corrected. Think of a license as code. It currently works, but tomorrow you may find a serious bug, or, in the case of law, laws change outside the project, making a serious bug. Now you cannot ever fix it. And, in common cases, it protects the project from contributors wishing to remove their contribution later, breaking the project. Linus could get a brain tumor and decide to revoke his contributions to the Linux kernel. Or his heirs could do it, since by law they get his copyrights, including all the code he ever contributed. Guess what that would do. Or any contributor to Linux can do it. 10,000 legal minefields is not a good way to run a project.
    - matheusmoreira 5y ago
      Yeah, I assumed Linux developers wouldn't actually want to hurt the project they contributed their code to. Linux is not protected from that. Another example: one day the copyright protection of Linux code is going to run out. That'll probably be a very fun day. > 10,000 legal minefields is not a good way to run a project. Agreed. Honestly I think these licenses shouldn't even exist to begin with. Copyright needs to be abolished.
- throwaway19937 5y ago
  One issue that CLAs solve is the problem of copyright termination after the death of the author; see (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/203 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/203). DannyBee is an open source lawyer, his comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18148727 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18148727) gives some other advantages of CLAs.
Rapzid 5y ago
And I wouldn't be surprised if this in response to what happened with identity server.
- homarp 5y ago
  care to give some links about "what happened with identity server" ? is that https://leastprivilege.com/2020/10/01/the-future-of-identityserver/ https://leastprivilege.com/2020/10/01/the-future-of-identity... ?
  - Rapzid 5y ago
    Yes, that's it. It was(is?) a .Net Foundation project that was included in ASP.NET Core starter templates. The maintainers decided to go non-FOSS for the future. Interestingly though, there seemed to be no talk or discussion of finding new maintainers for the .Net Foundation project. Microsoft decided to update their templates for the upcoming .Net 6 to use the new, non FOSS identity server project(despite their being no real need for any identity server in these setups, and despite it no longer being FOSS). Even more strange(coming from other FOSS platform communities) was how much shilling for Duende IdentityServer, and by Duende, was occurring in this thread discussing the development(buckle up): https://github.com/dotnet/aspnetcore/issues/32494 https://github.com/dotnet/aspnetcore/issues/32494 . Was really strange for a FOSS community to not be discussing the road forward for FOSS, but to be making arguments like "the license isn't that expensive" and etc. All this time the project is still listed as a .Net Foundation project: https://dotnetfoundation.org/projects/identityserver https://dotnetfoundation.org/projects/identityserver . I was somewhat surprised when looking into the .Net Foundation rules that they don't require turning over the project in any way to the community or foundation. I'm wondering now if MS was just going along with the easy path to avoid even more drama while the dust settles and they shore up foundation rules to prevent this from happening in the future.
detaro 5y ago
Kind of unusual, nowadays CLAs are very often not full copyright assignments.
Aaronontheweb 5y ago
The FSF isn't run by full-time employees of a for-profit megacap company that also owns the runtime and package distribution system the projects use though. It's also not the promise the foundation made when it first began soliciting projects to join it.

gortok 5y ago

This is incorrect. > Assignment and Contribution Models. The .NET Foundation uses either an assignment model or a contribution model for on-boarding new projects. Under the assignment model, a project transfers ownership of the copyright to the .NET Foundation. Under the contribution model, a project retains ownership of the copyright, but grants the .NET Foundation a broad license to the project’s code and other intellectual property. The project also confirms that the project’s submissions to .NET Foundation are its own original work (there are also instructions for any third party materials that might be included). They accept both models (Contribution and Assignment). https://dotnetfoundation.org/projects/submit https://dotnetfoundation.org/projects/submit

Aaronontheweb 5y ago
Looks like you're right - they removed that option and added it back: https://github.com/dotnet-foundation/projects/commit/7debb1579bbfe4c1469b0c89cdc8f1ce19ff8610 https://github.com/dotnet-foundation/projects/commit/7debb15...
- gortok 5y ago
  The PR that removed the Contribution model was only merged for 2 hours before it was reverted: https://github.com/dotnet-foundation/projects/issues/122 https://github.com/dotnet-foundation/projects/issues/122
  - Aaronontheweb 5y ago
    And it was never discussed nor has it ever really been revisited since, as you point out in your own comments on that issue. This is part of the larger issue of how the DFN interacts (or lack thereof) with its own member projects and usually only lets us know about changes after they're announced

achandlerwhite 5y ago

I don't believe this is currently true. The contribution model is there. I even recently had a PR accepted to clarify the language on the submission page and form.