> Sent: Friday, June 04, 2021 at 4:50 AM
> From: "Daniel Pono Takamori" <p...@sfconservancy.org>
> To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Update to GCC copyright assignment policy
>
> I'm joining this list just briefly to give some feedback and input on this
> thread on behalf of Software Freedom Conservancy, since we were mentioned
> multiple times in this thread. I suspect any conversation about how
> Conservancy and GCC might work together should be off-list or another list,
> and I have suggestions on that below.
Software Freedom Conservancy cannot dictate what gets discussed here. Naturally
people, including the GCC Steering Committee could discuss with the Software
Freedom
Conservancy Group on matters they wish to discuss. But, as you could have
deduced,
we allow comments ourselves on any aspects, and have allowed absolute freedom of
speech that could well have harmed people's sentiments and emotions very easily.
The law protects a broad variety of honest assessments and discussions.
> > > On 2021-06-01 07:28, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > > > If we no longer want the FSF to be the legal guardian and copyright
> > > > holder for GCC could we please find another legal entity that performs
> > > > that role and helps us as a project with copyleft compliance?
>
> > On Tue, Jun 01, 2021 at 12:58:12PM -0700, Thomas Rodgers wrote:
> > > Personally, this would have been my preference.
>
> On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 4:18 AM Mark Wielaard <m...@klomp.org> wrote:
> > the Conservancy is happy to share their knowledge and discuss policy issues
> > with the GCC community if we decide we want their input.
>
> Jason Merrill replied:
> >> This seems to me a complement rather than an alternative; some Linux
> >> developers use the Conservancy copyleft services while contributing under
> >> the DCO, and some GCC developers could do the same.
>
> Jason, we agree completely that anything Conservancy might offer is a
> complement rather than a replacement for any structure that the GCC community
> already has or might want to build. For example, the Copyleft Compliance
> project that Mark mentioned <https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/>
> is primarily designed for projects (e.g., BusyBox, Debian, Linux, Samba) that
> have diversely-held copyright. We provide logistical and coordination
> support for individuals who hold copyright (and help them figure out how to
> keep their own copyrights) and we also accept copyright assignment from those
> who prefer assignment. (As a reminder, Conservancy is not a law firm and we
> do not provide legal services and advice.)
It is important that people understand this - Software Freedom Conservancy does
not
provide any legal advice. The FSF, on the other hand, has a robust Copyright
and
Compliance framework where one can report violations.
Furthermore, thue FSF can still help bring about compliance even when the
copyright
lies elsewhere.
> Also, note that both these models of copyright (assigning to a single entity,
> or having diversly held copyright among both entities and individuals) are
> compatible with the DCO in our experience. The DCO is an assent mechanism
> for licensing, and is orthogonal to the question of who holds the copyright.
>
> We would be glad to talk off-list with any GCC developers who have already
> decided to keep their own copyright about joining an enforcement coalition at
> Conservancy.
>
> The final note that Conservancy would like to share on-list is that through
> our ContractPatch initiative <https://contractpatch.org>, we've been
> encouraging individuals to assure that their employment contract does permit
> them to keep their own copyrights. There are many reasons and advantages
> for individuals rather than their employers to take control of copylefted
> copyrights. We'd also be glad to discuss those policy benefits with anyone
> who is interested off-list.
The FSF has been at the forefront regarding the Disclaimer of Copyright aspect
from employers. What we can say is that things will became much more difficult
to manage if things are related without a real understanding of the
implications.
> If you'd like to discuss any of these topics further with Conservancy, may I
> suggest the Contract Patch mailing list at:
> <https://lists.sfconservancy.org/mailman/listinfo/contractpatch>
> We definitely don't want to see the GCC mailing list derailed into
> discussing this possibly off-topic issue.
>
> -Pono from Software Freedom Conservancy
It is well known that the Software Freedom Law Center has always sought to
resolve
licensing disputes amicably. On the other, the Software Freedom Conservancy
takes
much harder line against the noncompliance of licensing terms.
On August 26, 2016, Linus Torvalds stated that he found such type of lawyering
a nasty festering disease, and the SFC is spreading that disease.
I agree with Torvalds following your arguing on what is discussed here.
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-discuss/2016-August/003580.html
----- Christopher Dimech
Administrator General - Naiad Informatics - Gnu Project (Geocomputation)
Society has become too quick to pass judgement and declare someone
Persona Non-Grata, the most extreme form of censure a country can
bestow.
In a new era of destructive authoritarianism, I support Richard
Stallman. Times of great crisis are also times of great
opportunity. I call upon you to make this struggle yours as well !
https://stallmansupport.org/
https://www.fsf.org/ https://www.gnu.org/
