3 ms·

> but it seems to me that the core reason why CLAs exist is to undermine the core concept of OSS software. Essentially it allows some company to randomly re-lic

> but it seems to me that the core reason why CLAs exist is to undermine the core concept of OSS software. Essentially it allows some company to randomly re-license free contributions to turn them private/for-profit. While your assertion is true, it's not the only reason (or even the main reason) for CLAs in OSS. IANAL, but this has actually happened in the past (the big case I'm aware of predates open source but not free software -- google for Diku MUD). Let's say that someone infringes on the license. So you take them to court to get them to follow the license. If you have a CLA you are the copyright holder so you can just do this. If you don't, to make your case you have to round up virtually everyone who has ever contributed to your project because they are copyright holders too. So, in effect, it doesn't matter if they infringe on the license or not because you can't hold them to it.

icebraining 12y ago
So you take them to court to get them to follow the license. If you have a CLA you are the copyright holder so you can just do this. If you don't, to make your case you have to round up virtually everyone who has ever contributed to your project because they are copyright holders too. How so? As long as your code is also being used, you can sue for copyright infringement on your work. I don't see why you need to call up anyone else.
- Blackthorn 12y ago
  You can sue for anything you damn well please, that doesn't mean you're going to get anywhere. I'm not a lawyer and can't explain why things are the way they are. I can only inform you that this is the way things have shaked out in the past.
  - icebraining 12y ago
    Then can you point out specific cases when that has happened? Because frankly, it doesn't make sense to me, nor is it my recollection, that a copyright infringement suit can only be won if every single holder is part of the accusation.
    - pgaddict 12y ago
      You're right - you only need an author whose contributions were (supposedly) infringed. Of course, if you have more of them, covering larger amounts of code, that might help. A prime example is the SFC vs. VMWare lawsuit, where SFC represents a single contributor to Linux Kernel (Christoph Hellwig). https://sfconservancy.org/news/2015/mar/05/vmware-lawsuit/ https://sfconservancy.org/news/2015/mar/05/vmware-lawsuit/
mjg59 12y ago
> If you don't, to make your case you have to round up virtually everyone who has ever contributed to your project because they are copyright holders too. This is demonstrably untrue - all the Linux kernel GPL enforcement cases have been brought by individuals without involving any other kernel copyright holders.
- Blackthorn 12y ago
  Which cases? Help add to my knowledge and I'll gladly admit I'm wrong here -- every successful GPL infringement case I know of was from Busybox.
  - mjg59 12y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gpl-violations.org#Notable_victories http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gpl-violations.org#Notable_vict... covers a couple. But Busybox works just as well here - it doesn't have a CLA and only one of the original authors is involved in recent cases.
    - Blackthorn 12y ago
      This is awesome -- happy to admit I'm wrong on this point and CLAs may not be needed. I'm curious if any victories like this exist in the USA.
dragonwriter 12y ago
> Let's say that someone infringes on the license. So you take them to court to get them to follow the license. If you have a CLA you are the copyright holder so you can just do this. If you don't, to make your case you have to round up virtually everyone who has ever contributed to your project because they are copyright holders too. No, if you hold a valid sublicensable license (which includes any F/OSS license, as that's rather the point of Free Software/Open Source Software), and make a derivative work as authorized by that license, you hold the copyright on the derivative work and can enforce it without any participation by the upstream copyright holders. You may run into difficulty if the offender can show by a preponderance of the evidence that their allegedly-infringing work is derived from the upstream rather than your derivative work, in which case the upstream would have to take action.

icebraining 12y ago

So you take them to court to get them to follow the license. If you have a CLA you are the copyright holder so you can just do this. If you don't, to make your case you have to round up virtually everyone who has ever contributed to your project because they are copyright holders too. How so? As long as your code is also being used, you can sue for copyright infringement on your work. I don't see why you need to call up anyone else.

Blackthorn 12y ago
You can sue for anything you damn well please, that doesn't mean you're going to get anywhere. I'm not a lawyer and can't explain why things are the way they are. I can only inform you that this is the way things have shaked out in the past.
- icebraining 12y ago
  Then can you point out specific cases when that has happened? Because frankly, it doesn't make sense to me, nor is it my recollection, that a copyright infringement suit can only be won if every single holder is part of the accusation.
  - pgaddict 12y ago
    You're right - you only need an author whose contributions were (supposedly) infringed. Of course, if you have more of them, covering larger amounts of code, that might help. A prime example is the SFC vs. VMWare lawsuit, where SFC represents a single contributor to Linux Kernel (Christoph Hellwig). https://sfconservancy.org/news/2015/mar/05/vmware-lawsuit/ https://sfconservancy.org/news/2015/mar/05/vmware-lawsuit/

mjg59 12y ago

> If you don't, to make your case you have to round up virtually everyone who has ever contributed to your project because they are copyright holders too. This is demonstrably untrue - all the Linux kernel GPL enforcement cases have been brought by individuals without involving any other kernel copyright holders.

Blackthorn 12y ago
Which cases? Help add to my knowledge and I'll gladly admit I'm wrong here -- every successful GPL infringement case I know of was from Busybox.
- mjg59 12y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gpl-violations.org#Notable_victories http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gpl-violations.org#Notable_vict... covers a couple. But Busybox works just as well here - it doesn't have a CLA and only one of the original authors is involved in recent cases.
  - Blackthorn 12y ago
    This is awesome -- happy to admit I'm wrong on this point and CLAs may not be needed. I'm curious if any victories like this exist in the USA.

dragonwriter 12y ago

> Let's say that someone infringes on the license. So you take them to court to get them to follow the license. If you have a CLA you are the copyright holder so you can just do this. If you don't, to make your case you have to round up virtually everyone who has ever contributed to your project because they are copyright holders too. No, if you hold a valid sublicensable license (which includes any F/OSS license, as that's rather the point of Free Software/Open Source Software), and make a derivative work as authorized by that license, you hold the copyright on the derivative work and can enforce it without any participation by the upstream copyright holders. You may run into difficulty if the offender can show by a preponderance of the evidence that their allegedly-infringing work is derived from the upstream rather than your derivative work, in which case the upstream would have to take action.