4 ms·
From the GitHub thread it seems like these projects willingly transferred the copyright to the DNF when they joined; is that not the case? If it is what grounds
by wly_cdgr 5y ago
From the GitHub thread it seems like these projects willingly transferred the copyright to the DNF when they joined; is that not the case? If it is what grounds do they have for being upset?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- jabbany 5y agoCopyright is only with respect to the code. What's being done here is changes to how the project is managed. Basically inserting an upper management over the heads of existing maintainers. AFAIK, this right was not given (or at least the maintainers did not intend to give) to the umbrella org.
- still_grokking 5y agoBut if you gave away copyright you don't own the project any more. And if you don't own it, you don't own it… The new owner can do further on how he pleases. Sad in this case(es) but from a legal standpoint it's very likely like that, I guess (INAL).
- oaiey 5y agoYeah, but a stupid owner does what they did as nuclear options, a smart owner has the power but never use them but convinces people and let them work loosely as long as this is possible. This is a cooperate thinking applied to a foundation. Is a recipe for failure.
- didibus 5y agoI'm pretty sure the copyright is shared, at least that's how I've seen CLA's happen in the past, they grant joint ownership.
- robmen 5y agoSome projects are "contribution" (like you describe) and some are "assignment" (.NET Foundation holds the copyright).
- robmen 5y agoThe copyright applies to the source code the copyright is written on. Lawyers then argue who owns the "project" (GitHub organization/repository). For example, the copyright is not applied to the issues in the issue tracker. But the argument is about whether the .NET Foundation could do such a thing. The argument is whether they should. And, the .NET Foundation chooses that they should take over the projects, project maintainers can make different decisions themselves. None of this has been decided yet.
- robmen 5y agoImportant to note, this extra layer was added without discussing it would be done before or after. The lack of communication eroded trust.
- Brian_K_White 5y agoYou willingly gave me the key to your garage so that I can mow your lawn with your lawnmower. I used the key to steal your car.
- jgilias 5y agoThey signed over Copyright. Isn't a better analogy that they willingly gifted away their garage with everything in it under a _promise_ that they can still use the car? Honestly, to me the only way out seems to exercise the licensee rights and fork.
- robmen 5y agoForking is still one way this may resolve. The .NET Foundation can decide to provide other options.
- iudqnolq 5y agoNitpick, but in general a verbal promise in exchange for something of value would be considered a legally binding contract in the US.
- jgilias 5y agoI think not just US, also Switzerland among other places. But either way, Copyright was signed over, and that has real implications. Although, in this case I gather that initially the Copyright owner for the given project was Microsoft, then some other foundation, and now .NET foundation. So, it's not like the maintenaners signed over anything they had, really. As sad as it is, legally it has never been theirs. Good thing the license protects some freedoms.
- robmen 5y agoThen you and I would probably no longer be friends.
- fsckboy 5y agothey didn't transfer copyright, they granted a nonexclusive license
- robmen 5y agoDepends on the project.
- robmen 5y agoI think if you read the blog post, it'll be clearer.