Re: Seeking input from developers: glibc copyright assignment policy.

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> From: Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>
> Cc: libc-alpha@sourceware.org,  siddhesh@gotplt.org
> Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2021 10:23:06 +0200
> 
> >> No, the developer gives up copyright ownership.
> >
> > I don't understand what that means, sorry.  The text says I can do
> > anything and everything I want with the code, except interfering with
> > the FSF's use of that code.  So what exactly did I give up?
> 
> Ownership, that is, you don't control anymore who gets to use the code
> and under what terms.

The code I contributed to the project, I don't control, indeed.  But I
can distribute my code separately under any conditions I like.  I
don't see how this constitutes giving up ownership.

IOW, there are two copies of my code: the copyright for what I
contributed to the project belongs to the FSF, but the copyright for
the code I distribute independently belongs to me.

> >> This has real legal consequences, and it is quite different from a
> >> broad-ranging license to use the contributions.  If the FSF wanted
> >> the latter, it could ask for precisely that, but instead it asks for
> >> full ownership.
> >
> > I looked up all the instances of "owner" and "ownership" in the CLA
> > text, and couldn't find where they ask for "full ownership".  What did
> > I miss?
> 
> I have a personal FSF copyright assignment that talks about “rights of
> the copyright owner” and “the right to enforce the copyright”.

  (e) FSF has all the rights of a copyright owner in the assigned
      copyrights, subject to the license grantback to developer stated
      above, including the right to enforce the copyright in aid of
      the free software purposes of this agreement, the right to use,
      license and distribute the Works, and the right to make works
      based on the Works and use, license and distribute them, with
      the Program or as standalone modules, all as made or acquired by
      Developer or in modified form. FSF may charge a fee of its
      choosing for the service of distribution.

But:

  (c) Developer is not obliged to defend FSF against any spurious
      claim of adverse copyright ownership, but will cooperate with
      FSF in defending against any such claim and will indemnify FSF
      for all losses if the claim is not spurious, i.e. if the adverse
      claimant is a true copyright holder and FSF is thereby damaged,
      including but not limited to the amount of all adverse damage
      judgments and costs of litigation.

This says nothing to the effect that the developers cannot by
themselves try to enforce the copyright, should they wish to do so.

So I still don't see the giving up of ownership or control on who uses
the code and how.  The developer gives the FSF the right to distribute
the changes together with the program they changed, and make
derivative software based on that, as the FSF sees fit, that's all.
Which is all consistent with fair use of free software, AFAICT.

> (Another advantage of the DCO: the terms are totally transparent.)

"Transparent" in what sense?