#GCC does away with the requirement for copyright assignments to the FSF:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-June/236182.html
I think it’s a wise decision in this day and age. 👍
More importantly than the decision itself, it sets a good precident, as many companies insist on copyright assignments and have been able to point to the FSF.
There is still the issue of handling copyright relicensing when the author has passed on, but perhaps one problem at a time?
@ArneBab @emacsen I’ve never heard about assignment to the FSF being used as a tool to allow relicening under a weaker license; that would be quite astonishing!
The main justification is that it makes it easier to enforce copyright in court:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html
https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/maintain.html#Copyright-Papers
@civodul @emacsen here’s the argumentation when such weakening of a license can be a net win for free software: http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2009/01/14/qt-lgpl.html
www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assig…
@ArneBab, I’m pretty sure that’s not the case, since (1) the FSF works explicitly against proprietary software and (2) the assignment states that the work shall remain copyleft:
The Foundation promises that all distribution of the Work, or of any work “based on the Work”, that takes place under the control of the Foundation or its agents or assignees, shall be on terms that explicitly and perpetually permit anyone possessing a copy of the work to which the terms apply, and possessing accurate notice of these terms, to redistribute copies of the work to anyone on the same terms. These terms shall not restrict which members of the public copies may be distributed to. These terms shall not require a member of the public to pay any royalty to the Foundation or to anyone else for any permitted use of the work they apply to, or to communicate with the Foundation or its agents in any way either when redistribution is performed or on any other occasion.
@cnx @emacsen @civodul that description matches at least LGPL, GPL, and AGPL, so it would allow starting a project under AGPL and if a lax-licensed competitor with lots of proprietary additions appears and threatens to dominate (as the many Apache-Licensed JS-tools now do), relicense to LGPL, because having a dominant copyleft core is much better than getting a lax system that becomes corrupted to the point where it is no longer viable to use it without proprietary parts.
@civodul @emacsen Relicensing requires approval of all copyright holders, because, well, they hold the copyright and can do whatever they want with the code.
Just because it currently exists under an open license does not imply there is no ownership any longer. It just grants the public the ability to participate in the ownership by making modifications (without modification there is no participation).
So assigning a single copyright holder is really the only...
@jens @emacsen I’m well aware of this. :-) My point is that GNU licenses are written in such a way that recipients of code covered by a GNU license can choose to use it under the terms of a “stronger” license.
For example, LGPLv3 says that one “may convey a copy of the modified version […] under the GNU GPL”. Copyright holders don’t need to be involved.
@emacsen I think relicensing it not much of an issue: it’s copyleft and can only go in the direction of more freedoms for users (as in: one can redistribute LGPL code under GPL, GPL code under AGPL, etc.).
As long as it does not become the wild west like #Linux, with enough of a mess to make the SCO lawsuit possible, I think it’s okay. (Unfortunately the Steering Committee’s statement does not rule out the possibility of creating a mess…)