FSF, OSI and Busybox [LWN.net]

FSF, OSI and Busybox

Posted Dec 14, 2008 1:18 UTC (Sun) by nix (subscriber, #2304)
In reply to: FSF, OSI and Busybox by sbergman27
Parent article: The FSF raises the stakes for Cisco

Contributors to FSF software didn't sign away their rights: the copyright
assignment has a grantback clause.

to post comments

FSF, OSI and Busybox

Posted Dec 14, 2008 4:46 UTC (Sun) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link] (4 responses)

they signed over their copyright. there is a grant for them to use the code any way they want, but since they are no longer the copyright owner they may not have any standing to take action anymore.

in addition there is no way to undo the copyright assignment if the FSF starts doing things that they don't like.

for the record Rob Landley is a former contributor/maintainer of busybox

Then why are you surprised?

Posted Dec 15, 2008 15:11 UTC (Mon) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] (1 responses)

for the record Rob Landley is a former contributor/maintainer of busybox.

Busybox rejected FSF pleas in the past (by switching to GPLv2 only license) so why they believe FSF will do what they want now? When FSF asks them to do something - they refuse because they have right to do so, but when they ask FSF something they expect that FSF will hear? Why?

Just because

Posted Dec 15, 2008 19:24 UTC (Mon) by man_ls (guest, #15091) [Link]

Are you sure this is relevant? If it is, it shouldn't be. If they have good reasons I'm sure that the FSF would listen to them. That is at least what I expect from them (and why I contribute to FSFE).

FSF, OSI and Busybox

Posted Dec 19, 2008 4:57 UTC (Fri) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link] (1 responses)

One must assume that they signed over their copyright knowing that there was a risk that the FSF might act in a way they considered undesirable (although not counter to the aims of the GPL, of course - that would cause a termination of the assignment), and weighed that against the benefit of having a dedicated organisation like the FSF defending the GPLity of their software instead of having to do it themselves. Someone who thinks the FSF are "bullies" would probably be unwise to assign a copyright to them, for example.

More broadly, it strikes me as strange that one might consider the FSF's being prepared to launch a lawsuit to defend the GPL as in any way incompatible with, or unpredictable given, their stated intention to uphold and enforce the GPL. In short, copyright assigners must surely have seen this coming at some point - indeed, the very action of transferring said copyright to the FSF may well be considered an implicit assent to whatever enforcement actions the FSF deem necessary, simply because of the nature of such an arrangement.

(Of course, in some jurisdictions certain aspects of copyright are not transferable or assignable at all; from the Berne Convention, 6bis:

> Independent of the author's economic rights, and even after the transfer of the said rights, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to the said work, which would be prejudicial to the author's honor or reputation.

It is conceivable that an action such as a lawsuit, conducted against the author's express wishes, could be argued to be a "derogatory action in relation to the said work", although I don't know what precedents might exist to support it.)

FSF, OSI and Busybox

Posted Dec 19, 2008 5:02 UTC (Fri) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link]

(btw - in no way do I wish to suggest that Rob Landley has, or would, assigned any copyright to the FSF; I was thinking of his attitude when I mentioned "bullies", but only as an example of an attitude that would be singularly incompatible with copyright assignment. Just in case anyone misunderstands. Nor am I taking any position at all on whether his attitude is valid or reasonable; I am sure he has sound reasons for it, just as I am sure that others find it incomprehensible. People are like that, you know...)