Kuhn: Why your project doesn't need a contributor licensing agreement [LWN.net]

Bradley Kuhn tells free software projects that they need not worry about contributor license agreements. "Thus, I encourage those considering a CLA to look past the 'nice assurances we'd like to have — all things being equal' and focus on the 'what legal assurances our FLOSS project actually needs to assure its thrives'. I've spent years doing that analysis; I've concluded quite simply: in this regard, all a project and its legal home actually need is a clear statement and/or assent from the contributor that they offer the contribution under the project's known FLOSS license."

to post comments

Kuhn: Why your project doesn't need a contributor licensing agreement

Posted Jun 10, 2014 13:17 UTC (Tue) by josh (subscriber, #17465) [Link] (14 responses)

Now if only the FSF would drop their copyright assignment requirement...

Kuhn: Why your project doesn't need a contributor licensing agreement

Posted Jun 10, 2014 13:38 UTC (Tue) by dakas (guest, #88146) [Link] (10 responses)

What then? It would not be in the position to defend the contributed code against license violations, and the whole point of FSF/GPL is strong copyleft protection. Would you be willing to sue people violating the GPL on code you contributed to a core GNU project, one where the FSF wants to see copyleft enforced?

That's a whole lot more paperwork than a copyright assignment.

Kuhn: Why your project doesn't need a contributor licensing agreement

Posted Jun 10, 2014 16:12 UTC (Tue) by josh (subscriber, #17465) [Link]

Anyone who *wants* to assign copyright to the FSF is still free to do so, and can do so retroactively for their past contributions as well. The FSF can directly enforce GPL on code assigned to them. the copyrights they hold, However, that assignment paperwork hampers lightweight contribution, and numerous other projects function just fine without it, including enforcement of the GPL and other licenses.

Kuhn: Why your project doesn't need a contributor licensing agreement

Posted Jun 11, 2014 0:13 UTC (Wed) by tglx (subscriber, #31301) [Link] (6 responses)

Sigh.

Contributor licensing agreements are a US centric thing.

I for myself CANNOT assign my copyright to anyone else, simply as it is not possible under the jurisdiction I'm living in. And that's true for a lot of other non US jurisdictions.

So what is FSF actually protecting here?

The right to exclude me from contributing because I'm not an American citizen?

Definitely something which is worth to protect, right?

Kuhn: Why your project doesn't need a contributor licensing agreement

Posted Jun 11, 2014 9:56 UTC (Wed) by niner (guest, #26151) [Link] (5 responses)

Even if you cannot assign copyright (same as me), you very probably can give an exclusive license to the FSF including all rights. It's a different legal construct, but does have the same effect. Usually judges interpret copyright assignments this way, even if a copyright assignment per se is not allowed by the law. They look at what was the intent of your copyright assignment and interpret it as an exclusive license.

Kuhn: Why your project doesn't need a contributor licensing agreement

Posted Jun 11, 2014 12:20 UTC (Wed) by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784) [Link] (1 responses)

As I understand it, French moral rights law holds certain rights, including the right to refuse permission for changes to the work and the right to retract publication, to be inalienable (can't be waived) and to be non-transferrable (can't be reassigned) except by inheritance. (And given the way a certain German optical media production software suite's maintainer acts, I get the impression German law says some very similar things.)

Kuhn: Why your project doesn't need a contributor licensing agreement

Posted Jun 12, 2014 13:28 UTC (Thu) by mstone_ (subscriber, #66309) [Link]

a certain german optical media production software suite's maintainer has his or her own version of reality

Kuhn: Why your project doesn't need a contributor licensing agreement

Posted Jun 12, 2014 23:00 UTC (Thu) by tglx (subscriber, #31301) [Link] (2 responses)

And why on earth should I do that?

Just because FSF is defining what freedom means? - No, thanks.

Just for the record, I enforced the GPL several times myself. It's not that hard as MY copyright, and thats all what you need for it, holds up in court. I did enforce it without assigning anything to FSF or someone else. Ironically enough one of the cases was settled with a donation to FSFE :)

I mostly agree with Bradleys analysis. IMNSHO CLAs in any form are simply wrong. Whether it's a full assignment or the workaround of "exclusive licensing" it's simply giving your power into the hands of someone you cannot control.

I'm so not going to do that ever. If FSF decides to cut my freedom to contribute, it's not MY problem, really.

Thanks,

tglx

Kuhn: Why your project doesn't need a contributor licensing agreement

Posted Jun 13, 2014 3:19 UTC (Fri) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389) [Link]

I thought the FSF licensed your contributions back to you with unlimited rights (certainly not an exclusive license at least).

Kuhn: Why your project doesn't need a contributor licensing agreement

Posted Jun 19, 2014 5:06 UTC (Thu) by dakas (guest, #88146) [Link]

Whether it's a full assignment or the workaround of "exclusive licensing" it's simply giving your power into the hands of someone you cannot control.

The FSF assignment is a two-sided contract. The FSF is limited in the manner in which it can relicense software and/or design future GPL licenses.

So you have some amount of control.

On the other hand, you will die one day. At the very latest then you will be giving your power into the hands of someone you cannot control. And more likely than not, that person will not care about Free Software as much as the FSF.

Tangentially related, one principal component of current copyright terms is purported to have copyright last long enough that it only stops by the time everybody the author cared about is dead.

But the principal effect is actually a corollary: by the time copyright ceases, any heir caring about the author's work personally instead of as some nice additional income is dead. So when the work passes into the public domain, nobody will be around drumming for it and taking mindshare from still exploitable works.

The FSF has its own agenda, true. It may match yours better than that of your distant heirs. Rvrn if it doesn't: your heirs are not contractually bound.

Think of the copyright assignment not as much as "trusting" the FSF but rather giving it a task on your behalf. They do it in their own way, sure. But others may not do it at all.

Kuhn: Why your project doesn't need a contributor licensing agreement

Posted Jun 15, 2014 16:15 UTC (Sun) by smurf (subscriber, #17840) [Link] (1 responses)

Strictly speaking, the FSF only needs one contributor's assignment / exclusive license / take-your-pick in order to go after a violator. (NB: Said contribution probably should be nontrivial.)

The FSF has way more than that. It does not need copyright assignments from every contributor ever; besides, some people are unable to sign one (try to get something like that ACKed by any largish company's legal dept. if you don't believe me).

Kuhn: Why your project doesn't need a contributor licensing agreement

Posted Jun 15, 2014 19:04 UTC (Sun) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

It does not need copyright assignments from every contributor ever; besides, some people are unable to sign one (try to get something like that ACKed by any largish company's legal dept. if you don't believe me).

The fact that it's hard to convince “any largish company's legal dept” to sign an agreement is reason for the agreement, not against it. If you know that in your jurisdiction a company has no right for your work made at home then it should be easy for you to sign agreement as individual and get some kind of formal approval from you company legal dept (it should know that it could not control you, too). If, on the other hand, your jurisdiction makes it possible for the company to control such agreements then obviously without agreement you could not contribute: company will be able to claim later that you've contributed their IP without their content and FSF will be forced to rip out such contributions. Which may be problematic if they are used by many other pieces of software.

Kuhn: Why your project doesn't need a contributor licensing agreement

Posted Jun 10, 2014 17:03 UTC (Tue) by pbonzini (subscriber, #60935) [Link] (2 responses)

Copyright assignment is not required for all projects (for example not for GNOME), though it is required for many of them including coreutils, autotools and the toolchain.

Kuhn: Why your project doesn't need a contributor licensing agreement

Posted Jun 10, 2014 17:53 UTC (Tue) by josh (subscriber, #17465) [Link] (1 responses)

And, painfully, GCC.

Kuhn: Why your project doesn't need a contributor licensing agreement

Posted Jun 10, 2014 21:30 UTC (Tue) by pbonzini (subscriber, #60935) [Link]

That is part of the toolchain.