7 ms·

I did not really dive into the details of the legalese that was shared in the comments, but on the surface none of what the .NET Foundation doing seems that odd

I did not really dive into the details of the legalese that was shared in the comments, but on the surface none of what the .NET Foundation doing seems that odd. How is it any different really from how Apache or Eclipse or many other foundations operate? I think it is less about the Foundation trying to seize the projects from the founders then it is the Foundation doing what it needs to do to apply its legal value to the projects ... which is seemingly why these projects decide to move to the foundation. Maybe I just missed some nuance that was discussed in more depth elsewhere.

Macha 5y ago
Compare the Linux foundation's treatment of projects: Node: Neither the OpenJS foundation, nor its parent the Linux foundation claims owner ship of Node: https://github.com/nodejs/node/blob/master/LICENSE https://github.com/nodejs/node/blob/master/LICENSE Linux: No copyright assignment, just a compatible license required: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/1.Intro.rst?h=v5.15-rc4 https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/lin... The CNCF and the kubernetes system does do a CLA, so it's not a concept the Linux foundation has never heard of it, but clearly it's not required for every project they support. See also SPI's stance, which provides the legal support for projects like Debian and Arch Linux: https://www.spi-inc.org/projects/relationship/ https://www.spi-inc.org/projects/relationship/
- initplus 5y ago
  Others in the space do ask for copyright assignment though, eg. FSF.
  - bingohbangoh 5y ago
    It didn’t sound like the .NET foundation did so ahead of time
  - MereInterest 5y ago
    If I recall correctly, that was because it was legally uncertain whether a copyright infringement case could be brought by an entity other than the copyright holder in the case of GPL violations. Since then, lawsuits to ensure GPL compliance haven't really materialized, since the threat of lawsuits tends to be sufficient, so assignment of copyright hasn't been necessary for other similar foundations. Intent also matters, and I would trust the FSF much more than I would trust a Microsoft-based foundation.
  - heavyset_go 5y ago
    If you're moving your project to the FSF, it's because you want their lawyers to defend your users' rights under the GPL/LGPL/AGPL. From the FSF[1]: > Under US copyright law, which is the law under which most free software programs have historically been first published, there are very substantial procedural advantages to registration of copyright. And despite the broad right of distribution conveyed by the GPL, enforcement of copyright is generally not possible for distributors: only the copyright holder or someone having assignment of the copyright can enforce the license. If there are multiple authors of a copyrighted work, successful enforcement depends on having the cooperation of all authors. > In order to make sure that all of our copyrights can meet the recordkeeping and other requirements of registration, and in order to be able to enforce the GPL most effectively, FSF requires that each author of code incorporated in FSF projects provide a copyright assignment, and, where appropriate, a disclaimer of any work-for-hire ownership claims by the programmer's employer. That way we can be sure that all the code in FSF projects is free code, whose freedom we can most effectively protect, and therefore on which other developers can completely rely. tl;dr: the FSF can't enforce a project's license unless they're copyright holder. [1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.en.html
- rectang 5y ago
  The .NET Foundation does not require copyright assignment. https://github.com/dotnet-foundation/foundation/blob/master/guidance/net-foundation-contribution-license-agreement.pdf https://github.com/dotnet-foundation/foundation/blob/master/... The CLA only grants a copyright license. EDIT: Apparently the .NET Foundation has an additional copyright assignment track. Their documentation is inconsistent and not up-to-date. This is deeply unfortunate and certain to cause grief. > 5. Licenses. > a. Copyright License. You grant .NET Foundation, and those who receive the Submission directly or indirectly from .NET Foundation, a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, irrevocable license in the Submission to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, and distribute the Submission and such derivative works, and to sublicense any or all of the foregoing rights to third parties. What appears to be at issue is administrative control over the Github project / organization.
  - Macha 5y ago
    From the linked post > It is also clear that the .NET Foundation project governance model is not well understood. Project maintainers sign an agreement that either assigns or contributes their project to the .NET Foundation. That’s the point at which project ownership changes. We’ll post another document on that this week as well. This apology claims project ownership was assigned and the parent poster claims that the actions taken are required for supporting the projects. Clearly from the comments in other linked threads the project owners dispute this but the CLAs shared by the contributors differ from the sample one you have linked.
    - rectang 5y ago
      > "either assigns or contributes" That wording (from the post) is unfortunate because it is misleading, but that doesn't mean we should continue to spread the misinterpretation. Please stop conflating "project ownership" with "copyright assignment". > the CLAs shared by the contributors differ from the sample one you have linked. I got that PDF by going to https://cla.dotnetfoundation.org/ https://cla.dotnetfoundation.org/ and then clicking through the link to the CLA. In response to your challenge, I subsequently went through the first step of the project contribution process at https://dotnetfoundation.org/projects/submit https://dotnetfoundation.org/projects/submit and (after signing into Github) wound up at a page which includes the following: > *Contribution Model.* Under the .NET Foundation contribution model, a project retains ownership of the copyright, but grants .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). EDIT: I'm incorrect. There is apparently an additional copyright assignment track. https://dotnetfoundation.org/projects/submit#project-application-and-review-by-the.net-foundation-board https://dotnetfoundation.org/projects/submit#project-applica... The DNF's documentation is inconsistent and not up-to-date.
- syshum 5y ago
  Hell Linux foundation does not even own the Trademark to Linux. Linus hold that personally
initplus 5y ago
It seems the issue hinges on: did a copyright assignment take place in order for projects to join the .NET foundation? It currently seems unclear whether this is the case or not. Foundation seems of the opinion that assignment did occur, but individual projects differ on whether they think they have assigned copyright or not. There are legitimate reasons for copyright assignment but all contributors need to have the same understanding of whether a copyright assignment applies or not. If projects have not had individual contributors agreeing to a copyright assignment up to now, then it's not possible for a project to assign copyright to the .NET foundation without the consent of every contributor. Which is likely a tricky proposition...

Macha 5y ago

Compare the Linux foundation's treatment of projects: Node: Neither the OpenJS foundation, nor its parent the Linux foundation claims owner ship of Node: https://github.com/nodejs/node/blob/master/LICENSE https://github.com/nodejs/node/blob/master/LICENSE Linux: No copyright assignment, just a compatible license required: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/1.Intro.rst?h=v5.15-rc4 https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/lin... The CNCF and the kubernetes system does do a CLA, so it's not a concept the Linux foundation has never heard of it, but clearly it's not required for every project they support. See also SPI's stance, which provides the legal support for projects like Debian and Arch Linux: https://www.spi-inc.org/projects/relationship/ https://www.spi-inc.org/projects/relationship/

initplus 5y ago
Others in the space do ask for copyright assignment though, eg. FSF.
- bingohbangoh 5y ago
  It didn’t sound like the .NET foundation did so ahead of time
- MereInterest 5y ago
  If I recall correctly, that was because it was legally uncertain whether a copyright infringement case could be brought by an entity other than the copyright holder in the case of GPL violations. Since then, lawsuits to ensure GPL compliance haven't really materialized, since the threat of lawsuits tends to be sufficient, so assignment of copyright hasn't been necessary for other similar foundations. Intent also matters, and I would trust the FSF much more than I would trust a Microsoft-based foundation.
- heavyset_go 5y ago
  If you're moving your project to the FSF, it's because you want their lawyers to defend your users' rights under the GPL/LGPL/AGPL. From the FSF[1]: > Under US copyright law, which is the law under which most free software programs have historically been first published, there are very substantial procedural advantages to registration of copyright. And despite the broad right of distribution conveyed by the GPL, enforcement of copyright is generally not possible for distributors: only the copyright holder or someone having assignment of the copyright can enforce the license. If there are multiple authors of a copyrighted work, successful enforcement depends on having the cooperation of all authors. > In order to make sure that all of our copyrights can meet the recordkeeping and other requirements of registration, and in order to be able to enforce the GPL most effectively, FSF requires that each author of code incorporated in FSF projects provide a copyright assignment, and, where appropriate, a disclaimer of any work-for-hire ownership claims by the programmer's employer. That way we can be sure that all the code in FSF projects is free code, whose freedom we can most effectively protect, and therefore on which other developers can completely rely. tl;dr: the FSF can't enforce a project's license unless they're copyright holder. [1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.en.html
rectang 5y ago
The .NET Foundation does not require copyright assignment. https://github.com/dotnet-foundation/foundation/blob/master/guidance/net-foundation-contribution-license-agreement.pdf https://github.com/dotnet-foundation/foundation/blob/master/... The CLA only grants a copyright license. EDIT: Apparently the .NET Foundation has an additional copyright assignment track. Their documentation is inconsistent and not up-to-date. This is deeply unfortunate and certain to cause grief. > 5. Licenses. > a. Copyright License. You grant .NET Foundation, and those who receive the Submission directly or indirectly from .NET Foundation, a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, irrevocable license in the Submission to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, and distribute the Submission and such derivative works, and to sublicense any or all of the foregoing rights to third parties. What appears to be at issue is administrative control over the Github project / organization.
- Macha 5y ago
  From the linked post > It is also clear that the .NET Foundation project governance model is not well understood. Project maintainers sign an agreement that either assigns or contributes their project to the .NET Foundation. That’s the point at which project ownership changes. We’ll post another document on that this week as well. This apology claims project ownership was assigned and the parent poster claims that the actions taken are required for supporting the projects. Clearly from the comments in other linked threads the project owners dispute this but the CLAs shared by the contributors differ from the sample one you have linked.
  - rectang 5y ago
    > "either assigns or contributes" That wording (from the post) is unfortunate because it is misleading, but that doesn't mean we should continue to spread the misinterpretation. Please stop conflating "project ownership" with "copyright assignment". > the CLAs shared by the contributors differ from the sample one you have linked. I got that PDF by going to https://cla.dotnetfoundation.org/ https://cla.dotnetfoundation.org/ and then clicking through the link to the CLA. In response to your challenge, I subsequently went through the first step of the project contribution process at https://dotnetfoundation.org/projects/submit https://dotnetfoundation.org/projects/submit and (after signing into Github) wound up at a page which includes the following: > *Contribution Model.* Under the .NET Foundation contribution model, a project retains ownership of the copyright, but grants .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). EDIT: I'm incorrect. There is apparently an additional copyright assignment track. https://dotnetfoundation.org/projects/submit#project-application-and-review-by-the.net-foundation-board https://dotnetfoundation.org/projects/submit#project-applica... The DNF's documentation is inconsistent and not up-to-date.
syshum 5y ago
Hell Linux foundation does not even own the Trademark to Linux. Linus hold that personally

initplus 5y ago

It seems the issue hinges on: did a copyright assignment take place in order for projects to join the .NET foundation? It currently seems unclear whether this is the case or not. Foundation seems of the opinion that assignment did occur, but individual projects differ on whether they think they have assigned copyright or not. There are legitimate reasons for copyright assignment but all contributors need to have the same understanding of whether a copyright assignment applies or not. If projects have not had individual contributors agreeing to a copyright assignment up to now, then it's not possible for a project to assign copyright to the .NET foundation without the consent of every contributor. Which is likely a tricky proposition...