Please explain the FSF copyright assignment thing

Please explain the FSF copyright assignment thing

[Filipe Silva]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 823 bytes --]

With the recent activity regarding RMS wishing that someone would come up
and write a replacement for magit that could be bundled inside emacs, and
give FSF the whole copyright assignment, I cannot help but be intrigued:
what good do these required copyright assignments do to the free software
community?

I really, really tried to understand but cannot. It's hard enough for a
community to be graced with the luck of having someone as Jonas Bernoulli
write the magit package, give away de code as GPLv3, and actually maintain
it through years. Now you have to also sign physical papers handing the
copyright to the FSF. that makes the process so much difficult. What's the
gain?

So what if the copyright belongs to someone else. Isn't this free software?
gplv3? don't you have the four liberties?

Enlighten me, please.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1050 bytes --]

Re: Please explain the FSF copyright assignment thing

[Óscar Fuentes]

Filipe Silva <filipe.silva@gmail.com> writes:

This is not the correct forum for this matters, but anyway...

> With the recent activity regarding RMS wishing that someone would come up
> and write a replacement for magit that could be bundled inside emacs, and
> give FSF the whole copyright assignment, I cannot help but be intrigued:
> what good do these required copyright assignments do to the free software
> community?

Only the copyright holder can effectively exert the associated legal rights.

> I really, really tried to understand but cannot. It's hard enough for a
> community to be graced with the luck of having someone as Jonas Bernoulli
> write the magit package, give away de code as GPLv3, and actually maintain
> it through years.

Jonas is the current lead maintaner of Magit. Before him there were
other maintainers. And even before was Marius Vollmer, who is the
original author and who deserves all the credit about the UI design
ideas that makes Magit great.

> Now you have to also sign physical papers handing the
> copyright to the FSF. that makes the process so much difficult. What's the
> gain?
>
> So what if the copyright belongs to someone else. Isn't this free software?
> gplv3? don't you have the four liberties?
>
> Enlighten me, please.

If Emacs distributes work which are not legally assigned to the FSF and
some author of that work goes berserk, things can turn *very* nasty, on
the legal aspect. It happened on the past.

Re: Please explain the FSF copyright assignment thing

[Filipe Silva]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2099 bytes --]

That's terrible. I see the point now. This should be explained in more
instances.

That's really not obvious for the legally inapt.

But tell me, how exactly could a berserk past author of a package do
legally to make things nasty? What legal maneuver would he use to exert
prejudice against FSF or the free software community if the software is in
GPLv3?

that gives me the impression that GPLv3 does not protect as much as I
believed.

On Jul 13, 2017 14:50, "Óscar Fuentes" <ofv@wanadoo.es> wrote:

> Filipe Silva <filipe.silva@gmail.com> writes:
>
> This is not the correct forum for this matters, but anyway...
>
> > With the recent activity regarding RMS wishing that someone would come up
> > and write a replacement for magit that could be bundled inside emacs, and
> > give FSF the whole copyright assignment, I cannot help but be intrigued:
> > what good do these required copyright assignments do to the free software
> > community?
>
> Only the copyright holder can effectively exert the associated legal
> rights.
>
> > I really, really tried to understand but cannot. It's hard enough for a
> > community to be graced with the luck of having someone as Jonas Bernoulli
> > write the magit package, give away de code as GPLv3, and actually
> maintain
> > it through years.
>
> Jonas is the current lead maintaner of Magit. Before him there were
> other maintainers. And even before was Marius Vollmer, who is the
> original author and who deserves all the credit about the UI design
> ideas that makes Magit great.
>
> > Now you have to also sign physical papers handing the
> > copyright to the FSF. that makes the process so much difficult. What's
> the
> > gain?
> >
> > So what if the copyright belongs to someone else. Isn't this free
> software?
> > gplv3? don't you have the four liberties?
> >
> > Enlighten me, please.
>
> If Emacs distributes work which are not legally assigned to the FSF and
> some author of that work goes berserk, things can turn *very* nasty, on
> the legal aspect. It happened on the past.
>
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2697 bytes --]

Re: Please explain the FSF copyright assignment thing

[John Yates]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 457 bytes --]

Perhaps you should ask why Richard decided that Magit, among all
of the many non-FSF copyright assigned packages that emacs users
recommend to one another, was so intolerable as to justify suggesting
mounting a - to my mind doomed - competing project.  It was not as if
all of those recommendations are for some proprietary or non-GPL-V3+
package.

Happily the community has rallied to Jonas' cause and will now try to
bring Magit into the FSF fold.

/john

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 915 bytes --]

Re: Please explain the FSF copyright assignment thing

[Filipe Silva]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 894 bytes --]

 I can guess: Because git is very important and magit solves that
beautifully for emacs?

Now the other question still stands: what could a berserk past author do
legally to exert prejudice against the FSF or emacs users, given that the
software he wrote is licensed under GPLv3? Why can't FSF distribute his
software under the same license?



On Jul 13, 2017 15:26, "John Yates" <john@yates-sheets.org> wrote:

> Perhaps you should ask why Richard decided that Magit, among all
> of the many non-FSF copyright assigned packages that emacs users
> recommend to one another, was so intolerable as to justify suggesting
> mounting a - to my mind doomed - competing project.  It was not as if
> all of those recommendations are for some proprietary or non-GPL-V3+
> package.
>
> Happily the community has rallied to Jonas' cause and will now try to
> bring Magit into the FSF fold.
>
> /john
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1712 bytes --]

Re: Please explain the FSF copyright assignment thing

[Karl Fogel]

John Yates <john@yates-sheets.org> writes:
>Perhaps you should ask why Richard decided that Magit, among all
>of the many non-FSF copyright assigned packages that emacs users
>recommend to one another, was so intolerable as to justify suggesting
>mounting a - to my mind doomed - competing project.  It was not as if
>all of those recommendations are for some proprietary or non-GPL-V3+
>package.

Richard didn't do anything special in this case.  He's fine with Magit being distributed as free software, and fine with Emacs users downloading and using Magit.  People are still free to "recommend [Magit] to one another", just as with any free software.

The copyright assignment thing is solely about Magit being distributed *as an official component of the GNU Emacs distribution*.  All the packages that are part of Emacs itself have always needed these copyright assignments.  I'm not commenting on whether this is legally necessary or not.  I'm just saying that the request here is exactly the same as the FSF has always made for every other package that would be distributed as part of Emacs.  Magit did not get singled out for special treatment.

-K

Re: Please explain the FSF copyright assignment thing

[Filipe Silva]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1455 bytes --]

Ok. I get that. But why, why it is legally required? What harm will descent
upon us all if an official component of emacs is distributed which hasn't
had it's copyright assigned to FSF?

On Jul 13, 2017 15:37, "Karl Fogel" <kfogel@red-bean.com> wrote:

> John Yates <john@yates-sheets.org> writes:
> >Perhaps you should ask why Richard decided that Magit, among all
> >of the many non-FSF copyright assigned packages that emacs users
> >recommend to one another, was so intolerable as to justify suggesting
> >mounting a - to my mind doomed - competing project.  It was not as if
> >all of those recommendations are for some proprietary or non-GPL-V3+
> >package.
>
> Richard didn't do anything special in this case.  He's fine with Magit
> being distributed as free software, and fine with Emacs users downloading
> and using Magit.  People are still free to "recommend [Magit] to one
> another", just as with any free software.
>
> The copyright assignment thing is solely about Magit being distributed *as
> an official component of the GNU Emacs distribution*.  All the packages
> that are part of Emacs itself have always needed these copyright
> assignments.  I'm not commenting on whether this is legally necessary or
> not.  I'm just saying that the request here is exactly the same as the FSF
> has always made for every other package that would be distributed as part
> of Emacs.  Magit did not get singled out for special treatment.
>
> -K
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1870 bytes --]

Re: Please explain the FSF copyright assignment thing

[Karl Fogel]

Filipe Silva <filipe.silva@gmail.com> writes:
>Ok. I get that. But why, why it is legally required? What harm will
>descent upon us all if an official component of emacs is distributed
>which hasn't had it's copyright assigned to FSF?

Well, there's a complex legal history here that I don't know the full details of.

However: You can imagine that if the FSF starts distributing some code (say, part of Magit) and then one of the authors of that code suddenly says "Wait, I never actually said that my code was distributable under GPL-3.0d; you don't have my permission to do this!" then the FSF finds itself in the position of infringing someone's copyright.

Or suppose the FSF has to enforce the copyright of Emacs in court for some reason.  It can only do that if it is the copyright holder.  Therefore, in preparation for possible future outbound enforcement, the FSF would like to first make sure it *is* the copyright holder.

I am not a lawyer, and I can't say whether these fears/goals are realistic.  Many free software projects -- most, I think -- have moved away from copyright assignment, and toward other mechanisms, such as "developer certificate of origin" (DCO).  There is also an intermediate thing called a Contributor Licensing Agremeent (CLA) that doesn't actually transfer copyright, but still makes the necessary promises to reassure the receiving party (who is also the redistributing party).

This topic is complex.  You can read

  https://julien.ponge.org/blog/developer-certificate-of-origin-versus-contributor-license-agreements/
  https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2014/jun/09/do-not-need-cla/

about CLA versus DCO.  The FSF is one of the few project stewards to still ask for an actual assignment of copyright.  I'm not sure why they do, but they've been asked before and their continued insistence on doing it is probably based on some kind of experience.  The topic only comes up several times a year on this list alone :-).

Best regards,
-Karl

>On Jul 13, 2017 15:37, "Karl Fogel" <kfogel@red-bean.com> wrote:
>
>    John Yates <john@yates-sheets.org> writes:
>    >Perhaps you should ask why Richard decided that Magit, among all
>    >of the many non-FSF copyright assigned packages that emacs users
>    >recommend to one another, was so intolerable as to justify
>    suggesting
>    >mounting a - to my mind doomed - competing project.  It was not
>    as if
>    >all of those recommendations are for some proprietary or
>    non-GPL-V3+
>    >package.
>   
>    Richard didn't do anything special in this case.  He's fine with
>    Magit being distributed as free software, and fine with Emacs
>    users downloading and using Magit.  People are still free to
>    "recommend [Magit] to one another", just as with any free
>    software.
>   
>    The copyright assignment thing is solely about Magit being
>    distributed *as an official component of the GNU Emacs
>    distribution*.  All the packages that are part of Emacs itself
>    have always needed these copyright assignments.  I'm not
>    commenting on whether this is legally necessary or not.  I'm just
>    saying that the request here is exactly the same as the FSF has
>    always made for every other package that would be distributed as
>    part of Emacs.  Magit did not get singled out for special
>    treatment.
>   
>    -K
>   

Re: Please explain the FSF copyright assignment thing

[Filipe Silva]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3832 bytes --]

Thanks.

> The FSF is one of the few project stewards to still ask for an actual
assignment of copyright.  I'm not sure why they do, but they've been asked
before and their continued insistence on doing it is probably based on some
kind of experience.

That's what I'd like to know.

On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Karl Fogel <kfogel@red-bean.com> wrote:

> Filipe Silva <filipe.silva@gmail.com> writes:
> >Ok. I get that. But why, why it is legally required? What harm will
> >descent upon us all if an official component of emacs is distributed
> >which hasn't had it's copyright assigned to FSF?
>
> Well, there's a complex legal history here that I don't know the full
> details of.
>
> However: You can imagine that if the FSF starts distributing some code
> (say, part of Magit) and then one of the authors of that code suddenly says
> "Wait, I never actually said that my code was distributable under GPL-3.0d;
> you don't have my permission to do this!" then the FSF finds itself in the
> position of infringing someone's copyright.
>
> Or suppose the FSF has to enforce the copyright of Emacs in court for some
> reason.  It can only do that if it is the copyright holder.  Therefore, in
> preparation for possible future outbound enforcement, the FSF would like to
> first make sure it *is* the copyright holder.
>
> I am not a lawyer, and I can't say whether these fears/goals are
> realistic.  Many free software projects -- most, I think -- have moved away
> from copyright assignment, and toward other mechanisms, such as "developer
> certificate of origin" (DCO).  There is also an intermediate thing called a
> Contributor Licensing Agremeent (CLA) that doesn't actually transfer
> copyright, but still makes the necessary promises to reassure the receiving
> party (who is also the redistributing party).
>
> This topic is complex.  You can read
>
>   https://julien.ponge.org/blog/developer-certificate-of-
> origin-versus-contributor-license-agreements/
>   https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2014/jun/09/do-not-need-cla/
>
> about CLA versus DCO.  The FSF is one of the few project stewards to still
> ask for an actual assignment of copyright.  I'm not sure why they do, but
> they've been asked before and their continued insistence on doing it is
> probably based on some kind of experience.  The topic only comes up several
> times a year on this list alone :-).
>
> Best regards,
> -Karl
>
> >On Jul 13, 2017 15:37, "Karl Fogel" <kfogel@red-bean.com> wrote:
> >
> >    John Yates <john@yates-sheets.org> writes:
> >    >Perhaps you should ask why Richard decided that Magit, among all
> >    >of the many non-FSF copyright assigned packages that emacs users
> >    >recommend to one another, was so intolerable as to justify
> >    suggesting
> >    >mounting a - to my mind doomed - competing project.  It was not
> >    as if
> >    >all of those recommendations are for some proprietary or
> >    non-GPL-V3+
> >    >package.
> >
> >    Richard didn't do anything special in this case.  He's fine with
> >    Magit being distributed as free software, and fine with Emacs
> >    users downloading and using Magit.  People are still free to
> >    "recommend [Magit] to one another", just as with any free
> >    software.
> >
> >    The copyright assignment thing is solely about Magit being
> >    distributed *as an official component of the GNU Emacs
> >    distribution*.  All the packages that are part of Emacs itself
> >    have always needed these copyright assignments.  I'm not
> >    commenting on whether this is legally necessary or not.  I'm just
> >    saying that the request here is exactly the same as the FSF has
> >    always made for every other package that would be distributed as
> >    part of Emacs.  Magit did not get singled out for special
> >    treatment.
> >
> >    -K
> >
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5700 bytes --]

Re: Please explain the FSF copyright assignment thing

[Paul Eggert]

On 07/13/2017 11:48 AM, Filipe Silva wrote:
> What harm will descent upon us all if an official component of emacs 
> is distributed which hasn't had it's copyright assigned to FSF?

I can easily imagine scenarios where an uncooperative or unresponsive 
contributor would make GPL enforcement significantly more difficult for 
the FSF. These enforcement actions (which mostly are unpublicized) have 
nonzero legal cost, and increasing their cost would not be a good thing. 
Projects that don't care about enforcement, or care about it less, don't 
need to worry about this sort of thing. The GNU Project cares about 
enforcement.

I should mention that I'm not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.

Re: Please explain the FSF copyright assignment thing

[Óscar Fuentes]

John Yates <john@yates-sheets.org> writes:

> Perhaps you should ask why Richard decided that Magit, among all
> of the many non-FSF copyright assigned packages that emacs users
> recommend to one another, was so intolerable as to justify suggesting
> mounting a - to my mind doomed - competing project.  It was not as if
> all of those recommendations are for some proprietary or non-GPL-V3+
> package.

You are taking this the wrong way: Richard's request is a compliment,
not an attack.

If org-mode were not distributed with Emacs, I'm sure Richard would be
requesting the same about that package.

> Happily the community has rallied to Jonas' cause and will now try to
> bring Magit into the FSF fold.

What "cause" is that? Richard wants Magit into Emacs core, which Jonas
agrees with (with some caveats, some of them unfounded, IMHO). *If* that
goal cannot be accomplished, Richard's alternative is to develop a new
package for the same purpose. I can't see why Jonas or anyone else could
be offended by someone starting a competing project.

Really, guys, you are making a drama out of nothing.

BTW, I'm convinced that it is possible to create a new, original Git
frontend that improves upon Magit on a significant way. That said, Magit
is good enough.

Re: Please explain the FSF copyright assignment thing

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Óscar Fuentes <ofv@wanadoo.es>
> Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 21:42:04 +0200
> 
> You are taking this the wrong way: Richard's request is a compliment,
> not an attack.
> 
> If org-mode were not distributed with Emacs, I'm sure Richard would be
> requesting the same about that package.
> 
> > Happily the community has rallied to Jonas' cause and will now try to
> > bring Magit into the FSF fold.
> 
> What "cause" is that? Richard wants Magit into Emacs core, which Jonas
> agrees with (with some caveats, some of them unfounded, IMHO). *If* that
> goal cannot be accomplished, Richard's alternative is to develop a new
> package for the same purpose. I can't see why Jonas or anyone else could
> be offended by someone starting a competing project.
> 
> Really, guys, you are making a drama out of nothing.

Well said.  100% agreement.

Re: Please explain the FSF copyright assignment thing

[Yuri Khan]

On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 12:16 AM, Filipe Silva <filipe.silva@gmail.com> wrote:

> With the recent activity regarding RMS wishing that someone would come up
> and write a replacement for magit that could be bundled inside emacs, and
> give FSF the whole copyright assignment, I cannot help but be intrigued:
> what good do these required copyright assignments do to the free software
> community?

If you write a package and distribute it under GPL, a malicious user
can use your code in a derived work and distribute that under a
non-free license, in violation of GPL.

If you have assigned copyright to FSF, then FSF can sue that violator
and have a probability of winning and forcing them to either publish
their improvements under GPL, or stop distributing their derived work.

On the other hand, if you hold the copyright, you will probably not
have the resources and/or experience to sue, the violator will go
unpunished, and may successfully compete with you as far as detracting
users from your project.

One specific case is if you yourself go evil and decide to stop
distributing your package freely and make it non-free. As a copyright
holder, you legally can do that. If you are the dominating contributor
of your package, many of your users will stay with the new evil you.
And minor contributors will probably not sue because see previous
paragraph. These things actually happened.

Thus, assigning copyright to FSF protects the project against you going evil.

Re: Please explain the FSF copyright assignment thing

[Filipe Silva]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1809 bytes --]

Ok, now I finally understand.

but this must be explained in a clear, visible way. This is not at all
clear, anywhere.

What a sad state of affairs we are in regarding these legal aspects.

Thank you.

On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Yuri Khan <yuri.v.khan@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 12:16 AM, Filipe Silva <filipe.silva@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > With the recent activity regarding RMS wishing that someone would come up
> > and write a replacement for magit that could be bundled inside emacs, and
> > give FSF the whole copyright assignment, I cannot help but be intrigued:
> > what good do these required copyright assignments do to the free software
> > community?
>
> If you write a package and distribute it under GPL, a malicious user
> can use your code in a derived work and distribute that under a
> non-free license, in violation of GPL.
>
> If you have assigned copyright to FSF, then FSF can sue that violator
> and have a probability of winning and forcing them to either publish
> their improvements under GPL, or stop distributing their derived work.
>
> On the other hand, if you hold the copyright, you will probably not
> have the resources and/or experience to sue, the violator will go
> unpunished, and may successfully compete with you as far as detracting
> users from your project.
>
> One specific case is if you yourself go evil and decide to stop
> distributing your package freely and make it non-free. As a copyright
> holder, you legally can do that. If you are the dominating contributor
> of your package, many of your users will stay with the new evil you.
> And minor contributors will probably not sue because see previous
> paragraph. These things actually happened.
>
> Thus, assigning copyright to FSF protects the project against you going
> evil.
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2905 bytes --]

Re: Please explain the FSF copyright assignment thing

[Richard Copley]

On 13 July 2017 at 20:23, Filipe Silva <filipe.silva@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ok, now I finally understand.
>
> but this must be explained in a clear, visible way. This is not at all
> clear, anywhere.

Did you try searching the web for "FSF copyright assignment"? It's
explained in several published essays.

> What a sad state of affairs we are in regarding these legal aspects.

Could you please explain why you think so?

Re: Please explain the FSF copyright assignment thing

[Filipe Silva]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 840 bytes --]

Yes I've tries that. It does not go as deep into the question as this
thread.

I mean the fact that a copyright owner can go rogue and change a license
alone without asking if the other copyright owners would agree and at the
same time all the copyright owners must act in cooperation in order to
enforce a license. This is is a sad state of affairs.

On Jul 13, 2017 16:31, "Richard Copley" <rcopley@gmail.com> wrote:

On 13 July 2017 at 20:23, Filipe Silva <filipe.silva@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ok, now I finally understand.
>
> but this must be explained in a clear, visible way. This is not at all
> clear, anywhere.

Did you try searching the web for "FSF copyright assignment"? It's
explained in several published essays.

> What a sad state of affairs we are in regarding these legal aspects.

Could you please explain why you think so?

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1434 bytes --]

Re: Please explain the FSF copyright assignment thing

[Richard Copley]

On 13 July 2017 at 20:56, Filipe Silva <filipe.silva@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes I've tries that. It does not go as deep into the question as this
> thread.
>
> I mean the fact that a copyright owner can go rogue and change a license
> alone without asking if the other copyright owners would agree and at the
> same time all the copyright owners must act in cooperation in order to
> enforce a license. This is is a sad state of affairs.

OK, thanks. That was the paragraph of Karl's email I found least
plausible. Copyright assignment doesn't seem to have anything to do
with it. A declaration that the code is being released under the
appropriate licence should be enough.

Re: Please explain the FSF copyright assignment thing

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ 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 mean the fact that a copyright owner can go rogue and change a license
  > alone without asking if the other copyright owners would agree and at the
  > same time all the copyright owners must act in cooperation in order to
  > enforce a license. This is is a sad state of affairs.

That sort of thing does happen, and it has caused problems.
Fortunately the versions already released under a free license
remain available under that free license regardless of what happens.

The copyright assignment allows us to switch to a different free software
license when we want to.

But most importantly it gives us the power to go to court to enforce
the GPL _as the copyright holder_.n

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (gnu.org, fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.

Re: Please explain the FSF copyright assignment thing

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ 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. ]]]

  > What a sad state of affairs we are in regarding these legal aspects.

The laws were set up to help nonfree software.  We have to back-drive
them to get a result that wasn't envisioned.  This is why copyleft is
sometimes called a legal hack.

I agree it is a sad state of affairs.  But that is what we find
ourselves in.  It is up to us to try to win freedom out of this.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (gnu.org, fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.

Re: Please explain the FSF copyright assignment thing

[Dmitry Gutov]

On 7/13/17 10:12 PM, Yuri Khan wrote:
> One specific case is if you yourself go evil and decide to stop
> distributing your package freely and make it non-free. As a copyright
> holder, you legally can do that.

If I'm the copyright owner, and I decide to release the next version as 
proprietary, I'm of course able to do that.

That shouldn't stop FSF from distributing the previous version of the 
software, though, because it's been released under a Free Software 
license already. So protecting against this scenario doesn't seem necessary.

Also IANAL.

Re: Please explain the FSF copyright assignment thing

[Yuri Khan]

On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 3:15 AM, Dmitry Gutov <dgutov@yandex.ru> wrote:

>> One specific case is if you yourself go evil and decide to stop
>> distributing your package freely and make it non-free. As a copyright
>> holder, you legally can do that.
>
> If I'm the copyright owner, and I decide to release the next version as
> proprietary, I'm of course able to do that.
>
> That shouldn't stop FSF from distributing the previous version of the
> software, though, because it's been released under a Free Software license
> already. So protecting against this scenario doesn't seem necessary.

Yes, but the free previous version is likely to be at a disadvantage
against the now-non-free version led by the original developer. It
will have a much reduced user base.

> Also IANAL.

(Me too.)

Re: Please explain the FSF copyright assignment thing

[Dmitry Gutov]

On 7/14/17 1:12 PM, Yuri Khan wrote:

> Yes, but the free previous version is likely to be at a disadvantage
> against the now-non-free version led by the original developer. It
> will have a much reduced user base.

I'm fairly sure that the developer can refuse to assign the copyright 
for any future version anyway. It's all voluntary.

Re: Please explain the FSF copyright assignment thing

[Andreas Röhler]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1841 bytes --]



On 13.07.2017 21:12, Yuri Khan wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 12:16 AM, Filipe Silva <filipe.silva@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> With the recent activity regarding RMS wishing that someone would come up
>> and write a replacement for magit that could be bundled inside emacs, and
>> give FSF the whole copyright assignment, I cannot help but be intrigued:
>> what good do these required copyright assignments do to the free software
>> community?
> If you write a package and distribute it under GPL, a malicious user
> can use your code in a derived work and distribute that under a
> non-free license, in violation of GPL.

What would stop FSF to assist defending the authors rights?
Why FSF might not take over the risk of a sue than, provide layers etc.?



> If you have assigned copyright to FSF, then FSF can sue that violator
> and have a probability of winning and forcing them to either publish
> their improvements under GPL, or stop distributing their derived work.


Could you point me at some example?

AFAIK from a case sue has been brought forward by the individual author 
at his own risk, not by FSF.




>
> On the other hand, if you hold the copyright, you will probably not
> have the resources and/or experience to sue, the violator will go
> unpunished, and may successfully compete with you as far as detracting
> users from your project.
>
> One specific case is if you yourself go evil and decide to stop
> distributing your package freely and make it non-free. As a copyright
> holder, you legally can do that. If you are the dominating contributor
> of your package, many of your users will stay with the new evil you.
> And minor contributors will probably not sue because see previous
> paragraph. These things actually happened.
>
> Thus, assigning copyright to FSF protects the project against you going evil.



[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2979 bytes --]

Re: Please explain the FSF copyright assignment thing

[Paul Eggert]

Andreas Röhler wrote:
> What would stop FSF to assist defending the authors rights?

The FSF would not have standing. The authors would, but might not be available.

>> If you have assigned copyright to FSF, then FSF can sue that violator
>> and have a probability of winning and forcing them to either publish
>> their improvements under GPL, or stop distributing their derived work.
> 
> 
> Could you point me at some example? 

http://www.fsf.org/news/2009-05-cisco-settlement.html

Re: Please explain the FSF copyright assignment thing

[Andreas Röhler]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 760 bytes --]



On 18.07.2017 09:53, Paul Eggert wrote:
> Andreas Röhler wrote:
>> What would stop FSF to assist defending the authors rights?
>
> The FSF would not have standing. The authors would, but might not be 
> available.
>
>>> If you have assigned copyright to FSF, then FSF can sue that violator
>>> and have a probability of winning and forcing them to either publish
>>> their improvements under GPL, or stop distributing their derived work.
>>
>>
>> Could you point me at some example? 
>
> http://www.fsf.org/news/2009-05-cisco-settlement.html

Thanks for the info.

Seems I just dislike the idea of enforced freedom  - it should expand by 
the example and beneficial results it provides. That way prefer 
licenses, which allow users to do the wrong thing.



[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1608 bytes --]

Re: Please explain the FSF copyright assignment thing

[Stefan Monnier]

>> http://www.fsf.org/news/2009-05-cisco-settlement.html
> Seems I just dislike the idea of enforced freedom

Enforced freedom? nobody there was obligated to benefit from freedom.
What was enforced was the obligation for Cisco to transfer to their
clients the freedom they decided to enjoy.

In my mind, the above is one of the clearest examples of the benefit of GPL.

Without this, I wouldn't have been able to use OpenWRT on my home router
for so many years (and other third party firmwares before that), and
I likely wouldn't use BananaPis for my home servers (made possible by the
obligation of Allwinner to distribute the source code of their port of
the Linux kernel).
[ Not sure what I'd use instead of BananaPis, all other alternatives
  seem to use up a lot more power or to lack the reliability of SATA.  ]


        Stefan

Re: Please explain the FSF copyright assignment thing

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ 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. ]]]

  > Enforced freedom? nobody there was obligated to benefit from freedom.
  > What was enforced was the obligation for Cisco to transfer to their
  > clients the freedom they decided to enjoy.

You stated that very well.

The purpose of copyleft is to defend freedom for all users of our
software.  To defend their freedom requires preventing middlemen
(Cisco in that case) from stripping off the freedom when they
redistribute the software to others.

In other words, when we distribute Emacs to A,
and A redistributes Emacs to B, C and D, copyleft protects
the freedom of B, C and D by requiring
A to pass along Emacs to them with the full four freedoms.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (gnu.org, fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.

Re: Please explain the FSF copyright assignment thing

[Andreas Röhler]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1575 bytes --]



On 19.07.2017 05:32, 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. ]]]
>
>    > Enforced freedom? nobody there was obligated to benefit from freedom.
>    > What was enforced was the obligation for Cisco to transfer to their
>    > clients the freedom they decided to enjoy.
>
> You stated that very well.
>
> The purpose of copyleft is to defend freedom for all users of our
> software.  To defend their freedom requires preventing middlemen
> (Cisco in that case) from stripping off the freedom when they
> redistribute the software to others.
>
> In other words, when we distribute Emacs to A,
> and A redistributes Emacs to B, C and D, copyleft protects
> the freedom of B, C and D by requiring
> A to pass along Emacs to them with the full four freedoms.
>

Are two major issues with that idea.

1) the body of enforcement
2) the probability of involuntary license violations

For the latter: it looks like distributions of Emacs itself violated the 
GPL, right?
The reason is simple: With growing complexity it will be probable, that 
binaries and sources differ at some point.
Than the distributor risks to be at the mercy of the owner.

Now if a violation occurs, who will be the judge?: The very kind of 
institutions which otherwise found water-boarding a legal thing. Can't 
see how such a proceeding will match freedom.

Whilst Emacs itself remains an excellent tool.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2028 bytes --]

Re: Please explain the FSF copyright assignment thing

[tomas]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 11:20:31AM +0200, Andreas Röhler wrote:

[...]

> 2) the probability of involuntary license violations

To mitigate that, the FSF (and not only them) have a policy of
"patience": there are long, friendly negociations with violators
(often years!) before actually going to court. The aim is to
bring the violator into compliance, not to extort money from
them.

There are folks out there misusing the GPL (Patrick McHardy comes
to mind). As any sharp tool, the GPL (in conjunction with courts,
which are much biased towards "war") can be misused.

The solution to that is community action.

See https://lwn.net/Articles/694890/

Cheers
- -- tomás
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAllvSNUACgkQBcgs9XrR2kbH9ACbB8pdQwc3Or3/ZoLkvJdJMyBq
tEIAnAnpLeAb30MmwZ3khSaAWsRBpdbb
=DOk4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: Please explain the FSF copyright assignment thing

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ 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. ]]]

  > For the latter: it looks like distributions of Emacs itself violated the 
  > GPL, right?

"Distributions of Emacs itself" is somewhat vague.  I don't know what
that includes, or what you mean by saying that the violated the GPL.
I can only treat this as a rumor.

If you're talking about the FSF's distribution of Emacs, strictly
speaking an error would not be a violation.  That is because the FSF
is the copyright holder.  Because we give this moral issue the highest
priority, we would correct the error right away.

  > Now if a violation occurs, who will be the judge?

The legal system judges legal disputes.  It is not perfect, but we
have already made it work for enforcing the GPL, and other developers
have too.

We have a published policy that our goal in dealing with GPL violations
is to bring the violator into full compliance, and we try to do this
first with private discussions.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (gnu.org, fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.

Re: Please explain the FSF copyright assignment thing

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ 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. ]]]

The purpose of collecting copyright assignments for GNU Emacs (and
some other GNU packages) is so that the FSF can enforce the GPL in
court if someone distributes nonfree copies.

Such distribution violates the GPL, but if nobody enforces the license
in court, the violater can get away with continuing it.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (gnu.org, fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.