Re: Contributor agreements and copyright assignment
* Thomas Goirand: On 12/07/2012 05:39 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: The FSF can release your code under permissive free software licenses Can you explain how this is possible? As far as I know, the FSF is not contractually obliged to license contributors under copyleft licenses only. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87k3se4jy6@mid.deneb.enyo.de
Re: Contributor agreements and copyright assignment (was Re: Really, about udev, not init sytsems)
On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 07:03:23PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: On 12/05/2012 06:15 AM, Steve Langasek wrote: I understand that concern and recognize that this is a not-uncommon sentiment among Debian folks; this very closely parallels the question of whether one is willing to release software under a BSD license - or the MPL - vs. the GPL. But while some people do object to releasing their patches under a BSD license, there's certainly room for BSD code in Debian. The same is true of GPL works with contributor agreements. Yes, some folks will choose not to contribute to it on upstream's terms, but there are still plenty of others who will. I don't really want to go into the CLA debate (others have better things to share than me about it). But I think we all agree that, for some in Debian (I'm not talking about myself here), the Ubuntu CLA is (at least) annoying, to the point it has been mention in the init debate. So, my question to you Steve is: has this been discuss inside Canonical recently? No. The current CLA is the *result* of extensive discussions with the wider Free Software community about how this should work. It is not the goal to create a CLA that makes every individual in Debian happy, and even if it were that's not a realistic goal. The terms of the agreement are not up for discussion here. Nor am I trying to convince people that they (or their employers) should be happy with the CLA if they aren't. I'm merely advocating that people judge such agreements on their own merits. As a technologist, I would certainly love it if everyone who might like to contribute to upstart would be comfortable with the terms of doing so, but unfortunately that's not going to be the case. Even so, upstart remains a viable project, and people don't have to be willing to contribute to it themselves to reap the benefits of that. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Contributor agreements and copyright assignment
* Ian Jackson: Barry Warsaw writes (Re: Contributor agreements and copyright assignment (was Re: Really, about udev, not init sytsems)): FTR: http://www.canonical.com/contributors That allows Canonical to make proprietary forks of the code (eg, to engage in the dual licensing business model). This is very troublesome for me; it's too asymmetric a relationship. This is a right that the FSF assignment doesn't give the FSF and which the FSF wouldn't exercise even if they had it. The FSF can release your code under permissive free software licenses, and further development may never be released under a free software license. (As the editor of the GPL, they can also do this with software for which they do not own copyright, but that's a separate issue.) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/878v9ayi6i@mid.deneb.enyo.de
Re: Contributor agreements and copyright assignment
On 12/07/2012 05:39 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: The FSF can release your code under permissive free software licenses Can you explain how this is possible? I wont trust such a strong statement just because someone wrote it on debian-devel ... Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/50c1859c.1040...@debian.org
Re: Contributor agreements and copyright assignment
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes: Bjørn Mork bj...@mork.no writes: IANAL, but I believe you are wrong there. You give them much wider rights than this by assigning the copyright to the FSF. The copyright owner is free to relicense the work in any way they want. Have you see the copyright assignment contract that you make with the FSF? Seen and signed :-) It would be a breach of that contract for them to relicense the work in any way they want. The contract really does try to address this issue. The assignment isn't a unilateral act. The FSF promises to do things in return for the assignment. Yes. It is pretty clear that the FSF as such cannot redistribute your work under another license. I most certainly may be wrong, and likely is, but I still believe there still is a tiny possiblity that the copyright assignment is transferred as an asset, without being bound by the other parts of the contract. Now, bankruptcy is indeed a potential problem, since bankruptcy courts can do all sorts of things, including dissolve or partly dissolve contracts. But even in that admittedly dangerous situation, I do think there's a fair amount of legal protection involved. (And one gets some additional legal protection from the FSF being a non-profit under US law.) Good. Let's hope it won't be necessary. I still don't think issues like this should prevent anyone from contributing to any currently open source project. Yes, it will be frustrating if your work ends up being part of some proprietary software, but it's even worse if you cannot contribute to these projects out of fear of that happening. The main issue for some of us is not so much the ethical objections to these sorts of agreements but rather the fact that our employers flatly are not interested in signing anything of the sort, ever, with anyone. Much of my free software work is done as part of my day job, and my employer is unwilling to sign any of these agreements (but is fine with me releasing my work under free software licenses). Yes, that is an important problem with such policies. Bjørn -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87boe87vqv@nemi.mork.no
Re: Contributor agreements and copyright assignment (was Re: Really, about udev, not init sytsems)
On 12/05/2012 06:15 AM, Steve Langasek wrote: I understand that concern and recognize that this is a not-uncommon sentiment among Debian folks; this very closely parallels the question of whether one is willing to release software under a BSD license - or the MPL - vs. the GPL. But while some people do object to releasing their patches under a BSD license, there's certainly room for BSD code in Debian. The same is true of GPL works with contributor agreements. Yes, some folks will choose not to contribute to it on upstream's terms, but there are still plenty of others who will. I don't really want to go into the CLA debate (others have better things to share than me about it). But I think we all agree that, for some in Debian (I'm not talking about myself here), the Ubuntu CLA is (at least) annoying, to the point it has been mention in the init debate. So, my question to you Steve is: has this been discuss inside Canonical recently? Would it be possible that Canonical rethinks its contribution policy for at least Upstart (eg: wave the CLA signing requirement for Upstart)? Or is this something that you think has very little chance to change? Cheers, Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/50bf29fb.2090...@debian.org
Re: Contributor agreements and copyright assignment (was Re: Really, about udev, not init sytsems)
Barry Warsaw writes (Re: Contributor agreements and copyright assignment (was Re: Really, about udev, not init sytsems)): FTR: http://www.canonical.com/contributors That allows Canonical to make proprietary forks of the code (eg, to engage in the dual licensing business model). This is very troublesome for me; it's too asymmetric a relationship. This is a right that the FSF assignment doesn't give the FSF and which the FSF wouldn't exercise even if they had it. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20670.17437.431949.139...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: Contributor agreements and copyright assignment
On Sun, Dec 02, 2012 at 05:49:43PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: The answer, as it happens, is the very terms of the FSF's copyright assignment, which ensures the work remains available under a copyleft license. *That* is the gold standard for copyright assignment, by which other copyright assignments should be measured, not by whether the counterparty is a for-profit or non-profit corporation. Amen. Thanks for putting into words what I was trying to say, but couldn't. -- Copyshops should do vouchers. So that next time some bureaucracy requires you to mail a form in triplicate, you can mail it just once, add a voucher, and save on postage. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Contributor agreements and copyright assignment (was Re: Really, about udev, not init sytsems)
On Dec 04, 2012, at 06:42 PM, Ian Jackson wrote: That allows Canonical to make proprietary forks of the code (eg, to engage in the dual licensing business model). This is very troublesome for me; it's too asymmetric a relationship. Not to diminish your own concerns, but it doesn't bother me. To take a hypothetical case, let's say Skype were free software, and available on Debian. I write some clever hack to allow me to make phone calls in Emacs. I would have no qualms about signing a similar contributor agreement with Microsoft because I know a free version of my code will always be available, no matter what they do with it. I'd even hope they accept my contribution because while my patch has value, so does the larger body of code that it applies to, and for me, there is even more value in having that combination available upstream so more people can benefit from it. My patch has less value as a patch that someone has to apply independently and rebuild. -Barry signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Contributor agreements and copyright assignment (was Re: Really, about udev, not init sytsems)
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes: Barry Warsaw writes (Re: Contributor agreements and copyright assignment (was Re: Really, about udev, not init sytsems)): FTR: http://www.canonical.com/contributors That allows Canonical to make proprietary forks of the code (eg, to engage in the dual licensing business model). This is very troublesome for me; it's too asymmetric a relationship. This is a right that the FSF assignment doesn't give the FSF IANAL, but I believe you are wrong there. You give them much wider rights than this by assigning the copyright to the FSF. The copyright owner is free to relicense the work in any way they want. The rights transferred in the Canonical agreement are very limited compared to this. and which the FSF wouldn't exercise even if they had it. No, the current FSF wouldn't do that. But how about the company taking over assets after the FSF lose a major lawsuit? That company will then own the copyright on your work, including the rights to relicense it. I still don't think issues like this should prevent anyone from contributing to any currently open source project. Yes, it will be frustrating if your work ends up being part of some proprietary software, but it's even worse if you cannot contribute to these projects out of fear of that happening. BTW, never take any legal advice from me. Bjørn -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87k3sxlggu@nemi.mork.no
Re: Contributor agreements and copyright assignment
Bjørn Mork bj...@mork.no writes: IANAL, but I believe you are wrong there. You give them much wider rights than this by assigning the copyright to the FSF. The copyright owner is free to relicense the work in any way they want. Have you see the copyright assignment contract that you make with the FSF? It would be a breach of that contract for them to relicense the work in any way they want. The contract really does try to address this issue. The assignment isn't a unilateral act. The FSF promises to do things in return for the assignment. Now, bankruptcy is indeed a potential problem, since bankruptcy courts can do all sorts of things, including dissolve or partly dissolve contracts. But even in that admittedly dangerous situation, I do think there's a fair amount of legal protection involved. (And one gets some additional legal protection from the FSF being a non-profit under US law.) I still don't think issues like this should prevent anyone from contributing to any currently open source project. Yes, it will be frustrating if your work ends up being part of some proprietary software, but it's even worse if you cannot contribute to these projects out of fear of that happening. The main issue for some of us is not so much the ethical objections to these sorts of agreements but rather the fact that our employers flatly are not interested in signing anything of the sort, ever, with anyone. Much of my free software work is done as part of my day job, and my employer is unwilling to sign any of these agreements (but is fine with me releasing my work under free software licenses). -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87fw3leeh2@windlord.stanford.edu
Re: Contributor agreements and copyright assignment
On Dec 04, 2012, at 12:42 PM, Russ Allbery wrote: The main issue for some of us is not so much the ethical objections to these sorts of agreements but rather the fact that our employers flatly are not interested in signing anything of the sort, ever, with anyone. Much of my free software work is done as part of my day job, and my employer is unwilling to sign any of these agreements (but is fine with me releasing my work under free software licenses). That's a very real problem that I have encountered with potential contributors to my GNU projects. I've been on the other end of it in past jobs, where Legal is no fun at all to interact with. -Barry signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Contributor agreements and copyright assignment
On 2012-12-04 12:42:33 -0800 (-0800), Russ Allbery wrote:
[...]
The main issue for some of us is not so much the ethical
objections to these sorts of agreements but rather the fact that
our employers flatly are not interested in signing anything of the
sort, ever, with anyone. Much of my free software work is done as
part of my day job, and my employer is unwilling to sign any of
these agreements (but is fine with me releasing my work under free
software licenses).
Conversely, my job is to contribute to and support development
effort on particular free software projects, so I am releasing what
is essentially my employer's work for hire product of my own accord.
In this case the CLA they've signed on my behalf serves as a notice
in writing that they're aware of the arrangement, as well as a
guarantee against them claiming copyright infringement by the
projects to whom I am contributing.
--
{ WHOIS( STANL3-ARIN ); WWW( http://fungi.yuggoth.org/ );
FINGER( fu...@yuggoth.org ); IRC( fu...@irc.yuggoth.org#ccl );
PGP( 43495829 ); MUD( kin...@katarsis.mudpy.org:6669 ); }
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121204210951.go22...@yuggoth.org
Re: Contributor agreements and copyright assignment (was Re: Really, about udev, not init sytsems)
On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 06:42:37PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: Barry Warsaw writes (Re: Contributor agreements and copyright assignment (was Re: Really, about udev, not init sytsems)): FTR: http://www.canonical.com/contributors That allows Canonical to make proprietary forks of the code (eg, to engage in the dual licensing business model). This is very troublesome for me; it's too asymmetric a relationship. I understand that concern and recognize that this is a not-uncommon sentiment among Debian folks; this very closely parallels the question of whether one is willing to release software under a BSD license - or the MPL - vs. the GPL. But while some people do object to releasing their patches under a BSD license, there's certainly room for BSD code in Debian. The same is true of GPL works with contributor agreements. Yes, some folks will choose not to contribute to it on upstream's terms, but there are still plenty of others who will. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Contributor agreements and copyright assignment
On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 12:42:33PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: Bjørn Mork bj...@mork.no writes: IANAL, but I believe you are wrong there. You give them much wider rights than this by assigning the copyright to the FSF. The copyright owner is free to relicense the work in any way they want. Have you see the copyright assignment contract that you make with the FSF? It would be a breach of that contract for them to relicense the work in any way they want. The contract really does try to address this issue. Yes, but the FSF can still license my (theoretical) contributions under the GNU FDL, and that's enough reason for me never to assign copyright to them, ever. I will say that Debian has in some cases missed out on patches from me because I know the maintainer isn't interested in carrying them forever and upstream requires a copyright assignment. It doesn't help to say, So fix it yourself and provide a patch, if nobody's going to accept a patch. The only work I do where I assign copyright is with my employer. Otherwise, I think it's rude and insulting to ask for carte blanche (or a slightly more limited version of it, in the FSF's case) when I don't get the same in return. -- brian m. carlson / brian with sandals: Houston, Texas, US +1 832 623 2791 | http://www.crustytoothpaste.net/~bmc | My opinion only OpenPGP: RSA v4 4096b: 88AC E9B2 9196 305B A994 7552 F1BA 225C 0223 B187 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Contributor agreements and copyright assignment
On Sun, Dec 02, 2012 at 05:49:43PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: The answer, as it happens, is the very terms of the FSF's copyright assignment, which ensures the work remains available under a copyleft license. *That* is the gold standard for copyright assignment, by which other copyright assignments should be measured, not by whether the counterparty is a for-profit or non-profit corporation. Right. But the discussions on whether the recipient of CAA/CLAs is good or evil (or those on the features of those agreements, FWIW) miss the main issue that we should have with them, I think. Back when I was collecting feedback about the Debian/FSF relationship for the GNU Hackers Meeting 2011, I received various comments from fellow Debian developers who refuse to maintain GNU software for which CAA/CLA were required. That's the crux of the issue for us: *mandatory* CAA/CLAs force Debian maintainers to either bow to them, or renounce pushing Debian changes back upstream --- something which is quite against our culture. Understandably, people might not like either option and will therefore simply refuse to maintain CAA/CLA encumbered software in Debian. The net result is a smaller public of potential Debian maintainers for a given software. That damage might be lower or higher depending on the perception of evilness of the recipient, or depending on the features that the relevant CAA/CLAs offer. But is not zero, unless the CAA/CLAs are optional, as it happens for KDE. IMO that is what we should worry about before adopting as a rather foundational part of the Debian OS something that requires mandatory CAA/CLA. Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli . . . . . . . z...@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o Debian Project Leader . . . . . . @zack on identi.ca . . o o o . . . o . « the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club » signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Contributor agreements and copyright assignment
Tollef Fog Heen writes (Re: Contributor agreements and copyright assignment): Wouter Verhelst Personally, I'm not comfortable signing off my copyright to the FSF, for the very same reason I'm not comfortable signing off copyright to Canonical: while both are led by a person whom so far hasn't show much reason for me to distrust them, it is also true that both leaders have an agenda that I don't completely trust or agree with. The FSF is bound by its bylaws. This is not relevant because the FSF is a self-perpetuating oligarchy. But what is relevant is that the FSF copyright assignment form promises that code you assign to them will be released under Free Software principles. This is necessarily vague, but it does mean that the FSF do not have the power to take your code proprietary. Noone would accept proprietary software which didn't come with the standard indemnity and the FSF would be unable to offer that indemnity because of the very real threat of being sued by incensed Free Software authors. So it's true that the FSF could go mad, but the forms which their madness can take are much more limited than the behaviours which Canonical might plausibly behave in. So I think the risk of the FSF copyright assignment is much lower. I wouldn't sign a Canonical contributor agreement. I would prefer not to make the FSF copyright assignment but have done so on occasion - and I understand why they want it. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20668.49681.383834.639...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: Contributor agreements and copyright assignment (was Re: Really, about udev, not init sytsems)
On Dec 01, 2012, at 07:21 AM, Clint Byrum wrote: Just any FYI, Canonical no longer requires copyright assignment in their CLA. You are still giving Canonical an unlimited perpetual license on the code, but you retain your own copyrights. FTR: http://www.canonical.com/contributors with embedded links to the actual CLA for individuals and entities (in PDF form), as well as a FAQ. This one seems particularly relevant to the current discussion: 7. What’s different between the new contributor agreement and the old one? One difference between the two is that the old agreement was a copyright assignment agreement (where the contributor granted ownership of the contribution to Canonical), while the new one is a copyright license agreement (where the contributor grants permission for Canonical to distribute the contribution). One new element is a promise back to the contributor to release their contribution under the license in place when they made the contribution. The new agreement also features some refinements in the language around software patents and in how the contributor disclaims warranties. What I like about this CLA is that you retain your copyrights to the contribution, so you can do whatever you want with your contribution, including dual-license it, sell it yourself under a proprietary license, etc. This deeply appeals to the artist in me. The CLA also guarantees that your contribution will continue to be available with the license it was originally granted under. Meaning, even if Canonical takes your contribution proprietary and closed, your original contribution will continue to be available under the original (presumably) FLOSS license. By comparison, the PSF contributor agreements policy is available here: http://www.python.org/psf/contrib/ with embedded links to the actual form. Again, there is no copyright assignment. The choice of initial licenses on the contribution is more limited, meaning if you have a GPL'd contribution, you will have to dual license it under the Academic Free License v2.1 or Apache License v2.0 in order to contribute it to the PSF. The PSF contributor agreement says nothing about patents or moral rights, but it does guarantee that the contribution will be available under a FLOSS license. None of the terms of either contributor agreements seem particularly onerous to me, nor should they (IMHO) be an impediment to participating in such projects. -Barry signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Contributor agreements and copyright assignment
On Sat, Dec 01, 2012 at 10:24:53AM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: ]] Wouter Verhelst [...] Personally, I'm not comfortable signing off my copyright to the FSF, for the very same reason I'm not comfortable signing off copyright to Canonical: while both are led by a person whom so far hasn't show much reason for me to distrust them, it is also true that both leaders have an agenda that I don't completely trust or agree with. The FSF is bound by its bylaws. So are most corporations. Yes, one of the groups makes a profit, and the other doesn't. I don't think money is dirty, however, so that doesn't even remotely factor into my decision. This isn't about whether money is dirty or not, it's about whether you give your copyright to somebody who are able to do whatever they want with it or not. The FSF's is a lot more tied than a private corporation is. Only in that they promise to keep your contributions free software. While that is okay in and of itself, the FSF bylaws don't specify what their idea of freedom entails, and indeed has on occasion proven that their idea of freedom is less strict than ours. Note that I'm not saying that the FSF is evil, only that I have no particular reason to trust them more than I trust Canonical. You might not consider this a problem, but it is a fairly significant difference. Perhaps. -- Copyshops should do vouchers. So that next time some bureaucracy requires you to mail a form in triplicate, you can mail it just once, add a voucher, and save on postage. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121202002022.gb30...@grep.be
Re: Contributor agreements and copyright assignment
Wouter Verhelst wou...@debian.org writes: On Sat, Dec 01, 2012 at 10:24:53AM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: ]] Wouter Verhelst [...] Personally, I'm not comfortable signing off my copyright to the FSF, for the very same reason I'm not comfortable signing off copyright to Canonical: while both are led by a person whom so far hasn't show much reason for me to distrust them, it is also true that both leaders have an agenda that I don't completely trust or agree with. The FSF is bound by its bylaws. So are most corporations. Depending on how much you trust US law (and depending on the state in which the non-profit is formed), there is a fairly substantial difference. Board members of non-profits can be held personally legally liable to the public for running the non-profit in the public interest, and there is some oversight by the state attorney general that the non-profit is really being run according to its mission and bylaws. This oversight essentially does not exist for even publicly-traded corporations in the US, even though it's theoretically possible. Short of illegal activity or similar levels of active malfeasance, corporate charters and bylaws are essentially meaningless. And privately held companies have even less oversight than that (they are, for example, not even required to have any sort of bylaws). I don't recall if Canonical is publicly traded or not. I'm mostly familiar with non-profit law in New York and I assume the FSF is chartered in Massachusetts, so I'm not sure how much it carries over, but the oversight in New York is actually quite substantial. Only in that they promise to keep your contributions free software. While that is okay in and of itself, the FSF bylaws don't specify what their idea of freedom entails, and indeed has on occasion proven that their idea of freedom is less strict than ours. Certainly, no state attorney general is likely to get involved in this sort of dispute. The oversight would only happen with more egregious violations. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87a9twrzsw@windlord.stanford.edu
Re: Contributor agreements and copyright assignment
On Sun, Dec 02, 2012 at 11:58:55AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: The FSF is bound by its bylaws. So are most corporations. Depending on how much you trust US law (and depending on the state in which the non-profit is formed), there is a fairly substantial difference. Board members of non-profits can be held personally legally liable to the public for running the non-profit in the public interest, and there is some oversight by the state attorney general that the non-profit is really being run according to its mission and bylaws. One of the things that bothers me whenever this discussion comes up is that people seem to assume that non-profits are not only ultimately trustworthy, but also inviolable. Even if you have complete confidence in the (present and future) governance of the FSF, non-profits are not immune from lawsuits. And the FSF happens to be engaged in an activity that exposes it to certain liability: distribution of software, which may infringe any number of patents in the US. If $evilcorp decides to sue the FSF for patent infringement, and secures a judgement against the FSF that's worth more than all the FSF's assets, what prevents the bankruptcy court from assigning all copyrights to $evilcorp and thus giving them full control over future licensing of the work? The answer, as it happens, is the very terms of the FSF's copyright assignment, which ensures the work remains available under a copyleft license. *That* is the gold standard for copyright assignment, by which other copyright assignments should be measured, not by whether the counterparty is a for-profit or non-profit corporation. It's this which protects us against the threat of EvilRMSBot replacing the genuine article, or EvilCorp taking the FSF's assets and leaving the bylaws. Canonical's CLA terms are not identical to the FSF's copyright assignment, but they attempt to strike a similar balance. I think the CLA ought to be judged on that basis. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Contributor agreements and copyright assignment (was Re: Really, about udev, not init sytsems)
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 09:14:20AM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: Are you equating the FSF and the PSF with a private, for-profit company here? That seems to be stretching it a bit. Not really, IMO. Personally, I'm not comfortable signing off my copyright to the FSF, for the very same reason I'm not comfortable signing off copyright to Canonical: while both are led by a person whom so far hasn't show much reason for me to distrust them, it is also true that both leaders have an agenda that I don't completely trust or agree with. Yes, one of the groups makes a profit, and the other doesn't. I don't think money is dirty, however, so that doesn't even remotely factor into my decision. -- Copyshops should do vouchers. So that next time some bureaucracy requires you to mail a form in triplicate, you can mail it just once, add a voucher, and save on postage. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121201084518.gb23...@grep.be
Re: Contributor agreements and copyright assignment
]] Wouter Verhelst [...] Personally, I'm not comfortable signing off my copyright to the FSF, for the very same reason I'm not comfortable signing off copyright to Canonical: while both are led by a person whom so far hasn't show much reason for me to distrust them, it is also true that both leaders have an agenda that I don't completely trust or agree with. The FSF is bound by its bylaws. Yes, one of the groups makes a profit, and the other doesn't. I don't think money is dirty, however, so that doesn't even remotely factor into my decision. This isn't about whether money is dirty or not, it's about whether you give your copyright to somebody who are able to do whatever they want with it or not. The FSF's is a lot more tied than a private corporation is. You might not consider this a problem, but it is a fairly significant difference. -- Tollef Fog Heen UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87r4na86qi.fsf...@xoog.err.no
Re: Contributor agreements and copyright assignment (was Re: Really, about udev, not init sytsems)
On Dec 1, 2012, at 0:45, Wouter Verhelst wou...@debian.org wrote: On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 09:14:20AM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: Are you equating the FSF and the PSF with a private, for-profit company here? That seems to be stretching it a bit. Not really, IMO. Personally, I'm not comfortable signing off my copyright to the FSF, for the very same reason I'm not comfortable signing off copyright to Canonical: while both are led by a person whom so far hasn't show much reason for me to distrust them, it is also true that both leaders have an agenda that I don't completely trust or agree with. Just any FYI, Canonical no longer requires copyright assignment in their CLA. You are still giving Canonical an unlimited perpetual license on the code, but you retain your own copyrights. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4869ee1f-c008-471e-b882-a5c5831a5...@ubuntu.com
Contributor agreements and copyright assignment (was Re: Really, about udev, not init sytsems)
]] Barry Warsaw On Nov 29, 2012, at 03:40 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: Plus, you have to sign a contributor's agreement with Canonical which leaves a bad taste in my mouth. That shouldn't be the case with true free software, should it? In an ideal world maybe it shouldn't, but in truth it is for both open source and free software. As project leader of a GNU project, with copyrights owned by the FSF, I am required to obtain copyright assignments from contributors, which some folks feel are more onerous than contributor agreements. Open source projects like Python require contributor agreements for core developers, and this is not an uncommon requirement. Are you equating the FSF and the PSF with a private, for-profit company here? That seems to be stretching it a bit. We can argue about specific contribution legal documents and policies (although hopefully, not here ;) but not about whether they are a reality in today's FLOSS world. There's a significant difference whether your contractual counterpart is somebody who has the public good or profits in the pockets of its owners in mind. -- Tollef Fog Heen UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87hao7ik2r.fsf...@qurzaw.varnish-software.com
Re: Contributor agreements and copyright assignment (was Re: Really, about udev, not init sytsems)
On Nov 30, 2012, at 09:14 AM, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: There's a significant difference whether your contractual counterpart is somebody who has the public good or profits in the pockets of its owners in mind. In the abstract, the non-profit or for-profit status of an organization is little indication of whether they Do Good or Do Evil (or both). All I'm saying is that contributor agreements are a fact of FLOSS life, and that I've had people refuse to assign copyright to the FSF for contributions to my GNU projects. When they've stated their principles for this refusal, I can respect that even while I might try to convince them their concerns are misplaced. -Barry signature.asc Description: PGP signature
