4 ms·

Red Hat always planned to do this. They were huge proponents of the GPL Cooperation Commitment [1], and persuaded lots of gullible developers to irrevocably si

Red Hat always planned to do this. They were huge proponents of the GPL Cooperation Commitment [1], and persuaded lots of gullible developers to irrevocably sign over their rights. 1: https://gplcc.github.io/gplcc/ https://gplcc.github.io/gplcc/

bragr 3y ago
That really has no bearing here because regardless of who holds the copyright, what they are doing is permissible under the GPL.
jzb 3y ago
AFAIK this does not sign over any rights. It simply says that the signees support a "cure" period for GPL violations like the GPLv3 has. This wouldn't help Red Hat much if a rights holder decided that Red Hat was violating the GPL. At worst, or best, it would give Red Hat a little more time to "cure" its violation. It's not a permanent shield against being sued or having rights rescinded for GPL violation. So - if somebody signed this and decided to talk to Red Hat and Red Hat didn't want to change its EULA or whatever, then they can go ahead and sue or formally rescind Red Hat's GPL rights. (As I understand it. Standard disclaimer that I am not a lawyer, etc.)
- linuxftw 3y ago
  Creating additional barriers to rights holders to bring suit can only benefit the entity infringing. Why should the rights holder need to promise anything? Release the software under the rights or face termination of the license as they see fit? If you want back in, bring your checkbook.
ilc 3y ago
This is not the worst of what Red Hat has done. https://openinventionnetwork.com/ https://openinventionnetwork.com/ is #1 on my list. ... Why? Because instead of supporting all FOSS systems. It is Linux only. Thus locking the whole patent protection eco-system they created onto Linux, the platform they created.
- seabass-labrax 3y ago
  It is not 'Linux only' like you or I would understand it. They have an extremely broad definition of the 'Linux System' which includes thousands of programs: https://openinventionnetwork.com/linux-system/ https://openinventionnetwork.com/linux-system/
  - ilc 3y ago
    As long as it runs on Linux.

bragr 3y ago

That really has no bearing here because regardless of who holds the copyright, what they are doing is permissible under the GPL.

jzb 3y ago

AFAIK this does not sign over any rights. It simply says that the signees support a "cure" period for GPL violations like the GPLv3 has. This wouldn't help Red Hat much if a rights holder decided that Red Hat was violating the GPL. At worst, or best, it would give Red Hat a little more time to "cure" its violation. It's not a permanent shield against being sued or having rights rescinded for GPL violation. So - if somebody signed this and decided to talk to Red Hat and Red Hat didn't want to change its EULA or whatever, then they can go ahead and sue or formally rescind Red Hat's GPL rights. (As I understand it. Standard disclaimer that I am not a lawyer, etc.)

linuxftw 3y ago
Creating additional barriers to rights holders to bring suit can only benefit the entity infringing. Why should the rights holder need to promise anything? Release the software under the rights or face termination of the license as they see fit? If you want back in, bring your checkbook.

ilc 3y ago

This is not the worst of what Red Hat has done. https://openinventionnetwork.com/ https://openinventionnetwork.com/ is #1 on my list. ... Why? Because instead of supporting all FOSS systems. It is Linux only. Thus locking the whole patent protection eco-system they created onto Linux, the platform they created.

seabass-labrax 3y ago
It is not 'Linux only' like you or I would understand it. They have an extremely broad definition of the 'Linux System' which includes thousands of programs: https://openinventionnetwork.com/linux-system/ https://openinventionnetwork.com/linux-system/
- ilc 3y ago
  As long as it runs on Linux.