4 ms·

Are you suggesting the FSF has a copyright assignment for the purposes of “rug pulls”?

• ilc 1y ago
  Yes. The FSF requires assignment so they can re-license the code to whatever new license THEY deem best. Not the contributors. A CLA should always be a warning.
  • craftkiller 1y ago
    IANAL but their official reason for the CLA seems pretty reasonable to me: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.en.html tl;dr: If someone violates the GPL, the FSF can't sue them on your behalf unless they are a copyright holder. (personally I don't release anything under virus licenses like the GPL but I don't think there's a nefarious purpose behind their CLA)
    • dragonwriter 1y ago
      > If someone violates the GPL, the FSF can't sue them on your behalf unless they are a copyright holder. This seems to be factually untrue; you can assign specific rights under copyright (such as your right to sue and receive compensation for violations by third parties) without assigning the underlying copyright. Transfer of the power to relicense is not necessary for transfer of the power to sue.
      • teddyh 1y ago
        Whether or not it is acually true, this is what their lawyer has told them, and so the FSF is acting accordingly. You can’t reasonably blame them for that.
        • dragonwriter 1y ago
          I can’t reasonably excuse the FSF for it, and if you think about what the FSF’s mission and prime means of pursuing it is, I think you’ll see why your blame-outsourcing excuse doesn't really work in this case.
          • teddyh 1y ago
            Well. What I wrote was (from what I heard) the original reason for the copyright assignment requirement. However, since a few years ago, the FSF does not require GNU projects to have copyright assignment anymore. The FSF leaves the choice up to the individual project maintainers, which would, one assumes, drop the requirement if it affected developers and contributions for their project. Some have indeed dropped it, some have not.
• eikenberry 1y ago
  It was, some see the GPL2->GPL3 as a rug-pull... but it doesn't matter today as the FSF stopped requiring CAs back in 2021.
  • mirashii 1y ago
    That's a harder argument to make given the "or later" clause was the default in the GPLv2, and also optional.