4 ms·

tbf I think both GNU and Linux require copyright assignment, and I don't think that either of those are likely to swap licenses any time soon

orra 2y ago
FYI, you're right about GNU (by and large), but mistaken about Linux.
- ddtaylor 2y ago
  GNU has contributor agreements?
  - rpdillon 2y ago
    Absolutely! They want to have standing in court so they can defend infringers, and that's materially easier to establish with copyright assignment agreements. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.en.html So while I agree with other commenters that a CLA is a clear indication that the entity seeking to have copyright assigned wants to reserve the right to take some kind of legal action at some point (like changing the license), it also applies in cases where the legal action is benevolent rather than malevolent (like defending the copyright).
- mplanchard 2y ago
  Whoops, you're right! I thought there was some kind of sign off in there. My mistake.
jillesvangurp 2y ago
Neither of those licenses require copyright ownership transfer. It's what makes Linux completely bullet proof against license changes. You'd have to track down every copyright holder (everyone that contributed, even if it's just a 1 line change) to get their permission for re-licensing their contribution. Which in the case of Linux is literally tens of thousands of individuals and companies, if not more.
- arp242 2y ago
  Most GNU projects require a copyright assignment. For example, GNU coreutils: "note that non trivial changes require copyright assignment to the FSF as detailed in the “Copyright Assignment” section of the Coreutils HACKING notes." (from: https://www.gnu.org/software/coreutils/coreutils https://www.gnu.org/software/coreutils/coreutils). As far as I know, this is case for most GNU projects. Linux only requires a confirmation that you wrote the patch; previous poster was mistaken about that, but they were correct about GNU.
  - znpy 2y ago
    This is a trust point, though: assigning copyright to the free software foundation allows code to be relicensed under new versions of the gpl.
    - shagie 2y ago
      https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html - section 14 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. Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies that a certain numbered version of the GNU General Public License “or any later version” applies to it, you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that numbered version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of the GNU General Public License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation. Note the "or any later version" verbiage in there. If the software is licensed under "GPLv3 or any later version" - no permission is required or assignment of copyright. And so when you see things like https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Coreutils https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Coreutils Note also the "if you used the GPL without a version number, you can relicense it under any version" --- The "why they require a CLA" is for enforcement. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.en.html 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.

orra 2y ago

FYI, you're right about GNU (by and large), but mistaken about Linux.

ddtaylor 2y ago
GNU has contributor agreements?
- rpdillon 2y ago
  Absolutely! They want to have standing in court so they can defend infringers, and that's materially easier to establish with copyright assignment agreements. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.en.html So while I agree with other commenters that a CLA is a clear indication that the entity seeking to have copyright assigned wants to reserve the right to take some kind of legal action at some point (like changing the license), it also applies in cases where the legal action is benevolent rather than malevolent (like defending the copyright).
mplanchard 2y ago
Whoops, you're right! I thought there was some kind of sign off in there. My mistake.

jillesvangurp 2y ago

Neither of those licenses require copyright ownership transfer. It's what makes Linux completely bullet proof against license changes. You'd have to track down every copyright holder (everyone that contributed, even if it's just a 1 line change) to get their permission for re-licensing their contribution. Which in the case of Linux is literally tens of thousands of individuals and companies, if not more.

arp242 2y ago
Most GNU projects require a copyright assignment. For example, GNU coreutils: "note that non trivial changes require copyright assignment to the FSF as detailed in the “Copyright Assignment” section of the Coreutils HACKING notes." (from: https://www.gnu.org/software/coreutils/coreutils https://www.gnu.org/software/coreutils/coreutils). As far as I know, this is case for most GNU projects. Linux only requires a confirmation that you wrote the patch; previous poster was mistaken about that, but they were correct about GNU.
- znpy 2y ago
  This is a trust point, though: assigning copyright to the free software foundation allows code to be relicensed under new versions of the gpl.
  - shagie 2y ago
    https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html - section 14 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. Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies that a certain numbered version of the GNU General Public License “or any later version” applies to it, you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that numbered version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of the GNU General Public License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation. Note the "or any later version" verbiage in there. If the software is licensed under "GPLv3 or any later version" - no permission is required or assignment of copyright. And so when you see things like https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Coreutils https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Coreutils Note also the "if you used the GPL without a version number, you can relicense it under any version" --- The "why they require a CLA" is for enforcement. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.en.html 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.