Re: gnumach copyright assignment
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] > I'm also interessed in assigning my copyright to the FSF, for both > gnumach and emacs. Each project's maintainer can send you the questions for getting started. Of course, no NDAs. That's so terse that I'm not sure what it means. It could be a statement of current fact (you have not signed any NDAs about your work), or a statement of your intentions regarding possible employers (you intend not to sign NDAs for them) or a statement of your wishes (you hope they won't ask for NDAs), or maybe other things. I have never knowingly signed and NDA for generally useful technical information such as software, and I refuse to do so. I have never made an exception, and I intend never to make one. -- Dr Richard Stallman (https://stallman.org) Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org) Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org) Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)
Re: gnumach copyright assignment
On Fri, 2022-08-05 at 23:40 -0400, Richard Stallman wrote: > [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider > ]]] > [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, > ]]] > [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. > ]]] > > > > Secondly, it might conflict with NDAs in my work. > > Can you state concretely the scenario in which you envision a > conflict? I'd like to understand. > > I'm also interessed in assigning my copyright to the FSF, for both gnumach and emacs. Of course, no NDAs.
Re: gnumach copyright assignment
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] > > Secondly, it might conflict with NDAs in my work. Can you state concretely the scenario in which you envision a conflict? I'd like to understand. -- Dr Richard Stallman (https://stallman.org) Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org) Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org) Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)
Re: gnumach copyright assignment
Hello, Opening this file again: Kalle Olavi Niemitalo, le jeu. 27 oct. 2016 23:04:26 +0300, a ecrit: > Olaf Buddenhagen writes: > > > BTW, this is slightly off-topic: but AIUI, your main objection to > > signing a copyright assignment is the requirement to provide updates on > > your employer? > > This was the onerous clause in 2000: > > | 2. Developer will report occasionally, on its initiative and whenever > | requested by FSF, the changes and/or enhancements which are covered by > | this contract, and (to the extent known to Developer) any outstanding > | rights, or claims of rights, of any person, that might be adverse to > | the rights of Developer or FSF or to the purpose of this contract. > > Firstly, it seems unfair that, having given software to the FSF, > I would have a permanent duty to report claims of adverse rights, The duty is there only whenever you keep contributing changes, it only has to cover the period during which the changes were developped. > Secondly, it might conflict with NDAs in my work. Does this still apply? > I sent email to ass...@gnu.org today, asking whether they still > use this clause, and requesting a copyright assignment form for > Hurd changes made during the years 2016 to 2018 if not. Kalle Olavi Niemitalo, le ven. 28 oct. 2016 18:22:36 +0300, a ecrit: > They replied that they still use the clause. They should still be able to provide you with a form that covers 2016-2018? Samuel
Re: gnumach copyright assignment
Hi, On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 11:04:26PM +0300, Kalle Olavi Niemitalo wrote: > | 2. Developer will report occasionally, on its initiative and whenever > | requested by FSF, the changes and/or enhancements which are covered by > | this contract, and (to the extent known to Developer) any outstanding > | rights, or claims of rights, of any person, that might be adverse to > | the rights of Developer or FSF or to the purpose of this contract. > > Firstly, it seems unfair that, having given software to the FSF, > I would have a permanent duty to report claims of adverse rights, > while others who gave nothing would have no such duty. Well, this clause suffers from a bad case of legalese, so I'm not sure what it actually entails... (Which is of course a problem in itself.) I would assume though that it only pertains to the contributions you made covered by the assignment? I don't see how that would be unfair... -antrik-
Re: gnumach copyright assignment
Kalle Olavi Niemitalo writes: > I sent email to ass...@gnu.org today, asking whether they still > use this clause They replied that they still use the clause. I don't think I'll agree to the contract, then.
Re: gnumach copyright assignment
Olaf Buddenhagen writes: > BTW, this is slightly off-topic: but AIUI, your main objection to > signing a copyright assignment is the requirement to provide updates on > your employer? This was the onerous clause in 2000: | 2. Developer will report occasionally, on its initiative and whenever | requested by FSF, the changes and/or enhancements which are covered by | this contract, and (to the extent known to Developer) any outstanding | rights, or claims of rights, of any person, that might be adverse to | the rights of Developer or FSF or to the purpose of this contract. Firstly, it seems unfair that, having given software to the FSF, I would have a permanent duty to report claims of adverse rights, while others who gave nothing would have no such duty. Secondly, it might conflict with NDAs in my work. I sent email to ass...@gnu.org today, asking whether they still use this clause, and requesting a copyright assignment form for Hurd changes made during the years 2016 to 2018 if not. I did not request copyright assignment forms for GNU Mach and MIG because you wrote those are not required. I'll have to discuss things with my employer before posting patches, though.
Re: gnumach copyright assignment
Hi, On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 10:34:00PM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: > Oddly enough, in the fencepost copyright file, I see assignments for > GNUMACH, but not for MIG. Yes, AIUI a gnumach assignment is supposed to cover MiG contributions as well... -antrik-
Re: gnumach copyright assignment
Olaf Buddenhagen, on Mon 26 Sep 2016 19:08:15 +0200, wrote: > > Does the same policy apply to MIG as well? > > Since it's formally part of gnumach, I *assume* the same policy > applies... Oddly enough, in the fencepost copyright file, I see assignments for GNUMACH, but not for MIG. Samuel
Re: gnumach copyright assignment
Hi, On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 08:45:58PM +0300, Kalle Olavi Niemitalo wrote: > Olaf Buddenhagen writes: > > The FSF doesn't actually require assignments for gnumach -- almost all > > of gnumach is foreign code without FSF copyright anyway... > > Thank you. I had assumed that the old Mach code was > grandfathered in, and that the FSF would require copyright > assignments for any new additions. No, that really wouldn't make too much sense: since gnumach code is generally under a very permissive license, there is no need for the FSF to hold copyright to allow for license changes or to prosecute license violations... > What does the FSF require for GNU Mach patches, then? > A license grant and a signed employer disclaimer, perhaps? That's actually a good question... Traditionally, most projects just assume that if people contribute patches to files with a free software license statement, that implies they have the right to do so. More recently, many projects have moved to a more explicit "Developer's Certificate of Origin". Since almost all projects managed by the FSF require copyright assignments, I'm not sure this has been considered at all. Maybe we should bring it up -- but for now, I guess it's fine if you just send the patches... > I assume a dual license under GPLv2-or-later and the "MIT License" > (the same terms as in xen/public/COPYING) would be acceptable. Since MIT-style licenses are compatible with GPL (and pretty much any other license), dual-licensing really makes little sense... I'm stumped why some projects consider it a good idea. When providing patches to existing files, just keep whatever is already there; and if you add new files, go with the variant most commonly used in existing files. > Does the same policy apply to MIG as well? Since it's formally part of gnumach, I *assume* the same policy applies... BTW, this is slightly off-topic: but AIUI, your main objection to signing a copyright assignment is the requirement to provide updates on your employer? Just in case it isn't clear: this is only really relevant when you actually keep contributing after an employment change -- it's not like you have to keep informing the FSF of your status forever just because you contributed something in the past... (If your are really weary, I think you could even do an assignment only for past contributions -- though that would be pretty annoying I think, as you'd have to renew it every time you make further contributions...) -antrik-
Re: gnumach copyright assignment
Olaf Buddenhagen writes: > The FSF doesn't actually require assignments for gnumach -- almost all > of gnumach is foreign code without FSF copyright anyway... Thank you. I had assumed that the old Mach code was grandfathered in, and that the FSF would require copyright assignments for any new additions. I now see that the files under xen/public/ were added with non-FSF copyright notices in 2009. What does the FSF require for GNU Mach patches, then? A license grant and a signed employer disclaimer, perhaps? I assume a dual license under GPLv2-or-later and the "MIT License" (the same terms as in xen/public/COPYING) would be acceptable. (Unlike the BSD licenses, this one does not distinguish between source code and binary.) Does the same policy apply to MIG as well?
