if copyright assignment is so evil, why don't you oppose FSF requiring it?

Posted Feb 1, 2010 8:37 UTC (Mon) by Zack (guest, #37335)
In reply to: if copyright assignment is so evil, why don't you oppose FSF requiring it? by dlang
Parent article: Canonical copyright assignment policy 'same as others' (ITWire)

>for all of you stating or implying that Mark and Cononical are evil for requiring copyright assignment, are you equally opposed to the FSF requiring copyright assignment?

I see no comments on this article (so far) that state or imply that Mark or Canonical is evil for requiring copyright assignments. There are posts questioning the reasoning Mark gives and posts where people explain their point of view on the difference.

>do you also decry the fact that the linux kernel isn't switching to GPLv3 (and probably never will since they don't require copyright assignment)?

Not switching to GPLv3 does underline how clumsily copyrights are generally handled in the kernel development community.
But what's the relevance of the licencing policies of the kernel development community to a statement of Canonical regarding copyright assignments ?

>the comments in this thread reek of hypocrisy.

Again, which comments ? Posters here have a tendency to not only state their opinion, but also elaborate on how they reached the conclusion that led to that opinion. If they are incorrect, many would not object to having explained to them why they are incorrect.
Just lumping them all together and stating what basically amounts to "You're all hypocrites", isn't helpful.

The only ones that can be considered negative are the ones wondering whether the copyright assignment will result in software becoming proprietary, which is not an invalid concern.

if copyright assignment is so evil, why don't you oppose FSF requiring it?

Posted Feb 2, 2010 5:52 UTC (Tue) by jmm82 (guest, #59425) [Link] (5 responses)

"But what's the relevance of the licencing policies of the kernel development
community to a statement of Canonical regarding copyright assignments ?"

I believe the point was the same people that are mad that the Linux kernel
can not change its license to gplv3 due to the lackof single point of
copyright ownership, are the same people complaining when some company asks
for assignment.

if copyright assignment is so evil, why don't you oppose FSF requiring it?

Posted Feb 2, 2010 9:32 UTC (Tue) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link] (4 responses)

I dont see any intersection and I have yet to see a single lawyer claim that
copyright assignment is actually necessary in the case of Linux kernel even
assuming kernel developers want to shift to GPLv3 which they dont and also
copyright assignment to a corporation is different to a non profit foundation
with counter guarantees within the legal agreement to not make it proprietary

if copyright assignment is so evil, why don't you oppose FSF requiring it?

Posted Feb 2, 2010 13:45 UTC (Tue) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link] (1 responses)

That's ... ironic. The angle of Evil Company's profit from Innocent Hacker's hard work does not really make sense, because it assumes the conditions under which patches were contributed were not understood. Anyone who chooses a license should do so carefully, whatever the license says.

Some kernel contributors have explicitly stipulated that their code should only be distributed under the GPLv2 and NOT any later version, and you seem to be saying that this is not only a wrong interpretation, but also not a problem. Maybe I misunderstood.

But more importantly: free software really is a bit more than just the GPL. It allows for proprietary software. If you don't like where a particular piece of software is going, you can fork it. This is true for all free software projects.

if copyright assignment is so evil, why don't you oppose FSF requiring it?

Posted Feb 2, 2010 13:55 UTC (Tue) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]

No you have category misunderstood what I have been saying I never used
the word evil but it is important to note the clear differences between a
non profit foundation like FSF which offers counter guarantees and a for
profit company and the nature of differences between the copyright
licensing agreements

Whether individual kernel contributors have licensed it under GPLv2 only
or not may or may not be a problem That depends on the specific code in
question which might not even be copyrightable individually There has
been legal arguments placed which have evaluated workaround for such
things discussed in LWN as well before I encourage people to look those
up

Nobody claimed Free software was merely GPL but it is important to note
that permissively licensed code is equally permissive to everybody but
copyright assignments create special privileges to one entity which is a
different case and potential contributors shouldn't be fooled by merely
looking at the license without carefully evaluating whether the terms of
the copyright license agreements are ok with them

if copyright assignment is so evil, why don't you oppose FSF requiring it?

Posted Feb 3, 2010 3:15 UTC (Wed) by jmm82 (guest, #59425) [Link] (1 responses)

If the Linux kernel DID want to change its license it would an interesting
scene to say the least.

If copyright assignment of the Linux kernel had been given to the FSF then
the Linux kernel would most likely be gplv3 now. So non-profit or profit
assignment is assignment. There wouldn't be assignment if some rights were
not lost.

if copyright assignment is so evil, why don't you oppose FSF requiring it?

Posted Feb 3, 2010 3:21 UTC (Wed) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link]

if the kernel copyrights had been signed over to the FSF, that code would definitely be GPLv3 right now, even over the objections of the developers. Given how opposed many of those developers are, it would probably have triggered a fork in the kernel.