From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Filipe Silva Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Please explain the FSF copyright assignment thing Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 16:11:22 -0300 Message-ID: References: <87shi08bx5.fsf@wanadoo.es> <87shi0xjzf.fsf@kwork> <87o9soxigl.fsf@kwork> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113d79f6c5aec8055437b2a9" X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1499973100 29691 195.159.176.226 (13 Jul 2017 19:11:40 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 19:11:40 +0000 (UTC) Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?=C3=93scar_Fuentes?= , John Yates , Emacs developers To: Karl Fogel Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Jul 13 21:11:35 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dVjWI-00073j-RB for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 13 Jul 2017 21:11:27 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:33623 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dVjWO-00006T-Cr for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 13 Jul 2017 15:11:32 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:34014) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dVjWH-00006M-Jh for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 13 Jul 2017 15:11:27 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dVjWF-0007Sa-Uu for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 13 Jul 2017 15:11:25 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-oi0-x236.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4003:c06::236]:34072) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dVjWF-0007RJ-Np for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 13 Jul 2017 15:11:23 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-oi0-x236.google.com with SMTP id l130so54416756oib.1 for ; Thu, 13 Jul 2017 12:11:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=bJBpbAiAyQHAgqzQuQvDpjyFjPwshpWqE1KyLsbIldU=; b=CbP2RGgzKgUtKXKk/usvKBEvJZ2WpDJWQFtuDnTF7zgGIBv2sdwSrnIgywmS8QqoNm MsPBN6fya9Fx3DUqqZ7EaLK+m/6cSAY/RqSk6LRHWdp+v0m7yx55qiqNN+IG93kYz3eP +/gt+Gd+aMiLLF9pn8lYUWEc+/q5ryP6+Gz8NkEx+zk0ba+mUKSFhomEJkT68hFJP2QP PGh1RkmHpO1ZoZixSoj/BWLLhgYNnrQHRvUhMU1r/Dl8OQjwzLx3Y+MXxfPXml5B1jGF B2Gy0PXANnc3eHPGEQlVurnwQ78bSGsywtcEWeIsznDWgx7sqsAxtTJbcde/kcwcDsnz bbRA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=bJBpbAiAyQHAgqzQuQvDpjyFjPwshpWqE1KyLsbIldU=; b=nE7U3e2si2ajgmu/6VniWnvMf3CwufTK9Fy7IRD+wpz7XTDrWh6EYylkx9xq6Smhdy xcqcxzGtJMXjpIZSgNS9pueWTf967e35pXIAtVSJOxZSkxBL4xAQrGxOHMzkINyrL6Gp Q8tl8mKyZi6SEaiY+0XRp7fkYswaNrxC/0X6PeMtFkvhBL2IeuHuK1C+ecVQ52xYb0rB fbM1pQgyTWy/Ge1IlMBo2L5INaV+6iH6BYzDdD2V41E0kEEUmXiDaqXPavXqpMy1MB+b oY2iZCGiWzYwgCNaw/83ZCAvcyVQ0oTvG/eSHQkTPdEArdxsJmj/JY8xQC+WjtQCZjDu Qomg== X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw110t8MmUFU62qkihVDA1Rup13COIHy+Nlql1eqGwuA2j/C+HH+St EnwzCMRX5Xh6jpsK6mXLQPQxPVBOkg== X-Received: by 10.202.81.146 with SMTP id f140mr3715903oib.125.1499973082783; Thu, 13 Jul 2017 12:11:22 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.182.85.69 with HTTP; Thu, 13 Jul 2017 12:11:22 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87o9soxigl.fsf@kwork> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 2607:f8b0:4003:c06::236 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:216602 Archived-At: --001a113d79f6c5aec8055437b2a9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" 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 wrote: > Filipe Silva 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" wrote: > > > > John Yates 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 > > > --001a113d79f6c5aec8055437b2a9 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thanks.

>= =C2=A0The FSF= is one of the few project stewards to still ask for an actual assignment o= f copyright.=C2=A0 I'm not sure why they do, but they've been asked= before and their continued insistence on doing it is probably based on som= e kind of experience.=C2=A0

That's what I'd= like to know.=C2=A0

On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Karl Fogel <kfoge= l@red-bean.com> wrote:
Filipe Silva <fil= ipe.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 &qu= ot;Wait, I never actually said that my code was distributable under GPL-3.0= d; you don't have my permission to do this!" then the FSF finds it= self in the position of infringing someone's copyright.

Or suppose the FSF has to enforce the copyright of Emacs in court for some = reason.=C2=A0 It can only do that if it is the copyright holder.=C2=A0 Ther= efore, in preparation for possible future outbound enforcement, the FSF wou= ld 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 realis= tic.=C2=A0 Many free software projects -- most, I think -- have moved away = from copyright assignment, and toward other mechanisms, such as "devel= oper certificate of origin" (DCO).=C2=A0 There is also an intermediate= thing called a Contributor Licensing Agremeent (CLA) that doesn't actu= ally transfer copyright, but still makes the necessary promises to reassure= the receiving party (who is also the redistributing party).

This topic is complex.=C2=A0 You can read

=C2=A0 https://julien.ponge.org/blog/developer-certificate-of-ori= gin-versus-contributor-license-agreements/
=C2=A0 https://sfconservancy.org/blo= g/2014/jun/09/do-not-need-cla/

about CLA versus DCO.=C2=A0 The FSF is one of the few project stewards to s= till ask for an actual assignment of copyright.=C2=A0 I'm not sure why = they do, but they've been asked before and their continued insistence o= n doing it is probably based on some kind of experience.=C2=A0 The topic on= ly 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:
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 John Yates <j= ohn@yates-sheets.org> writes:
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 >Perhaps you should ask why Richard decided that Magit= , among all
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 >of the many non-FSF copyright assigned packages that = emacs users
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 >recommend to one another, was so intolerable as to ju= stify
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 suggesting
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 >mounting a - to my mind doomed - competing project.= =C2=A0 It was not
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 as if
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 >all of those recommendations are for some proprietary= or
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 non-GPL-V3+
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 >package.
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Richard didn't do anything special in this case.=C2= =A0 He's fine with
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Magit being distributed as free software, and fine with E= macs
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 users downloading and using Magit.=C2=A0 People are still= free to
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 "recommend [Magit] to one another", just as wit= h any free
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 software.
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 The copyright assignment thing is solely about Magit bein= g
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 distributed *as an official component of the GNU Emacs >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 distribution*.=C2=A0 All the packages that are part of Em= acs itself
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 have always needed these copyright assignments.=C2=A0 I&#= 39;m not
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 commenting on whether this is legally necessary or not.= =C2=A0 I'm just
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 saying that the request here is exactly the same as the F= SF has
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 always made for every other package that would be distrib= uted as
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 part of Emacs.=C2=A0 Magit did not get singled out for sp= ecial
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 treatment.
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 -K
>

--001a113d79f6c5aec8055437b2a9--