How can we trust that the SF Conservancy, or its successors, won't do something untoward with the copyright assignment?
Looking at their list of sponsors doesn't exactly assuage any such doubts as to their trustworthiness either.
Looking at their list of sponsors doesn't exactly assuage any such doubts as to their trustworthiness either.
> The Linux Foundation — the organization that effectively controls Linux and employs the creator of Linux — only spends 3.4% [of $177M] on… Linux.
Is the proposed SFC copyright assignment intended to be temporary, e.g. could it be returned to the creator after a legal case is won? Why is it not sufficient for SFC to represent the copyright owner? Would joint/minority ownership be an option?
Leaving aside legal concerns, could code maintainers possibly lose the ability to steward their OSS community and set governance policy, after they surrender copyright?
Bryan Lunduke's recent writings are a bad source, they consist almost entirely of reactionary trolling. No idea why he gets any readership.
Pot, meet kettle.
> From the lawyers I've spoken to about this, Linus's view on the GPL and the chosen enforcement strategy has long been known to be nonsense.
Unsourced. Low information content. You're throwing a whole lot of vague shade around in this thread. overboard2 asked you for an example, that was an opportunity to get specific, but your response is to make vague comparisons to 4chan?
No, this is incredibly wrong. The source here is me. You can choose to not believe me, but it's a source. I'm sorry but I just don't illegally carry a tape recorder into every meeting I go to just to prove something to a person on the internet. If you want me to elaborate then just ask a specific question, please stop with these "gotcha" tactics because they don't do anything. If you were referring to this person's writings, the article that was already posted is a source.
Accessible via: https://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/detailsPage?ein=460503801&name=...
You can find other non-profits here: https://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/allSearch
It’s just such a weird flawed premise of a measure I can’t imagine how it’d be useful in determining anything about their motivations.
More to the point, the foundation's web site doesn't say that its mission relates to Linux. It talks about software communities, open source etc.
* For project maintainers: The SF Conservancy can't prevent developers from working on their own project, because it is GPL-licensed and copyright holders can't retract GPL licensing once it's been given.
* For end-users: The GPL is a copyright license, not a EULA. So it only affects developers.
* For businesses that distribute software with changes: The risk of being sued by a copyright troll that buys the rights isn't an existential risk, because they can always keep using and fork an old GPL'd version.
No, they can't retract your permission to use your own software, but they can prevent you from going after infringing parties if SF Conservancy holds the copyright.
And at that point, why assign them copyright at all?
If pro bono legal representation were provided, I wager a number of developers would take up that offer.
If the lawyer owns the code: The violator's offer to simply release the code is refused by the lawyers, who go for the jugular and try to bleed the violating company for as much money as they can.
This is only true for GPLv3, and not GPLv2.
That seems unlikely, or somebody would do it just for the laughs. (I certainly would)
Of course, many other non-specialists have contrary opinions. If you have a link to a legal opinion to the contrary (by a lawyer skilled in the relevant areas), could you please share it?