From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ian Kelling Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: Relaxing the copyright assignment policy Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2022 01:44:38 -0400 Message-ID: <87y1sz9lu7.fsf@fsf.org> References: <87tu4ghfk7.fsf@inria.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="11361"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: mu4e 1.9.0; emacs 29.0.50 Cc: Andy Wingo , guile-devel@gnu.org To: Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Oct 29 20:27:40 2022 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1ooqYU-0002k0-86 for guile-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 29 Oct 2022 20:27:38 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ooqY0-0001mO-4M; Sat, 29 Oct 2022 14:27:08 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oofTP-0005hB-Sy for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 29 Oct 2022 02:37:39 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fsf.org; s=eggs-gnu-org; h=MIME-Version:In-reply-to:Date:Subject:To:From:References; bh=kXZLMpeA/oRhiiSfMQwij77qmMhULvYFc6qlLTCoYJg=; b=tC7vT8xz1e2xN22RwE7vdZ+a7 nQuXzu+ZmdHB1oaKx18tl9REn2/x2gck2lhyhbCOt/thWOYj9RafZL/2DkTOGQBQI+bNAC0FLE1cb H3XRFUaL/h750UQzS6p+NnSmljX7O03BXslYaFbYPv0qKJL/uNMaw1FE+6M1utqKO+mqmSCbE+Ylg L51y2EdUD3w+WzNf0WgMjTAQWBFGfnNV4pZnZhUQNKAOKNuIdGYpOw9QqKk3O58VWU0B08MqvtS6w hsS2MEi5zUBrBnrlopJw9k+tqNulWU2xVkTyWKmikDsd5ZOGFwlsgkursfA8/cY2aZvgqr0OEQygQ QyRNaLKhw==; Original-Received: from mail.fsf.org ([2001:470:142::13]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oofTP-0002Ah-KH; Sat, 29 Oct 2022 02:37:39 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fsf.org; s=mail-fsf-org; h=MIME-Version:In-reply-to:Date:Subject:To:From:References; bh=kXZLMpeA/oRhiiSfMQwij77qmMhULvYFc6qlLTCoYJg=; b=V49bOl/H78UXDS48UxKtVFFYs A51rWoix1sqlxW/8fRbiqy65H2iHozlhJleJ9XEWUOQ+pmhI9sq2vulygiNCjlwmi9iOUWQr4T63M PfbnqrnN1f+ARylMjET0Qg4bmLsdurgOW71MSgj1vY112sRHQhHQuC/UdclWtygWRF/YGwus1E4jg acrs1zoLxAMMo7LkVyIw9vEPbELW0L1Z6ZwW6rtOTvlLx9Y5isKiWVIxSluj8dYFiEfKwdifdVu3q AwRyjJq1xAyEkczkjLHAMtso9ESuHDSRlhOc4ke2rW7dACXT3IsiQi8BH4KCDR+LaV8qdWTfCPpef 2ltDDsQfA==; In-reply-to: <87tu4ghfk7.fsf@inria.fr> X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 29 Oct 2022 14:27:06 -0400 X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: "guile-devel" Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.lisp.guile.devel:21455 Archived-At: Ludovic Court=C3=A8s writes: > [[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]] > Hello Guilers! > > Until now, we required copyright for =E2=80=9Clegally significant=C2=B9= =E2=80=9D > contributions to Guile to be assigned to the Free Software Foundation > (FSF). This requirement did not exist for code not initially written > for Guile=E2=80=94e.g., (ice-9 match), sxml-match, etc. The purported ad= vantage > of copyright assignment is described at > . > > Your unreachable-but-nonetheless-friendly co-maintainers, Andy Wingo and > myself, came to the conclusion that the cost/benefit ratio of mandatory > copyright assignment is not good for Guile. Like other projects such as > GCC=C2=B2, we have decided to relax that policy. > > Nothing changes for contributors who have already assigned copyright on > future changes to Guile to the FSF. > > New contributors are encouraged to assign copyright to the FSF by > emailing them one of the forms at > , > especially if they intend to contribute significantly going forward. > > New contributors may instead choose to not assign copyright to the FSF. > In that case, copyright on the new code is held by the contributor > themself or, possibly, by their employer=E2=80=94contributors who choose = this > option are expected to clarify which of these two applies to their > situation. A copyright line for the new copyright holder is added to > files modified in a =E2=80=9Clegally significant=E2=80=9D way=C2=B3. > > Guile remains under the same license, the GNU Lesser General Public > License, version 3 or any later version; contributions are expected > under the same terms. > > We hope this to be one of the changes that will make it easier to > contribute to Guile. > > Let us know if you have any questions, and enjoy the good hack! > > Ludo=E2=80=99 & Andy. > > =C2=B9 https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/maintain.html#Legally-Significant > =C2=B2 https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-June/236182.html > =C2=B3 https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/maintain.html#Copyright-Notices > > [[End of PGP Signed Part]] Hi, I work at FSF as a sysadmin and currently occupy the staff seat on the board. I just want to add a few points to the conversation. First, the link you shared, https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html , says that FSF needs assignment or cooperation from all authors to enforce. As far as I know, since that was written, legal cases have shown we can enforce the GPL (not as easily) without some cooperation or full assignment in some jurisdictions for now. I've asked the FSF licensing team to update it with the right words. I mostly wanted to share a relevant link, https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/FSF-copyright-handling . One point it brings is that employer copyright disclaimers can be done without assignments. Even if you don't have a policy of requiring employer copyright disclaimers, I think it makes sense that for any new contributors who do not assigning copyright, to ask if they have an employer who owns the copyright. I know that employers in the US get it automatically in many cases, and they often have employment contracts that extend into employee's personal time. If it is the case that an employer owns the copyright, some natural follow questions to the contributor would be: Since the employer is probably not going to help enforce the GPL, how about getting them to either assign it to the FSF or disclaim their ownership so it will be owned by the contributor? And if the contributor wants neither of those, I would ask: do you have some documentation stating that your employer allows you to distribute their code to GNU under GPLv3+? If, based on the answers, it seems like the the contributor might not really have the permission to distribute their contribution under GPLv3+, then it would probably be a good time to insist on at least an employer copyright disclaimer. Don't hesitate to ask the FSF any licensing questions via licensing@fsf.org . FSF has lawyers and licensing experts (more expert than me) who will answer your questions. Guile is wonderful language, especially because it is protected by GPLv3+ and enforced by FSF if the opportunity arises. Happy hacking! --=20 Ian Kelling | Senior Systems Administrator, Free Software Foundation GPG Key: B125 F60B 7B28 7FF6 A2B7 DF8F 170A F0E2 9542 95DF https://fsf.org | https://gnu.org