From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from pine.sfconservancy.org (pine.sfconservancy.org [IPv6:2001:4801:7822:103:be76:4eff:fe10:7c55]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA1ED385780A for ; Thu, 1 Jul 2021 19:35:43 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org CA1ED385780A Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=sfconservancy.org Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sfconservancy.org Received: from localhost (unknown [216.161.86.19]) (Authenticated sender: bkuhn) by pine.sfconservancy.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 28908E8AD; Thu, 1 Jul 2021 19:35:42 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=sfconservancy.org; s=pine; t=1625168142; bh=snNrBkV7vuq5kG5/vl6BhVExsiRfPHdAaN4/I5YD68w=; h=From:To:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=YhvYy5zLUjexKfa5LAGUajYf+AuO5EOX33rWNIlCg3YAxrA8l9GavEaf4jf0267L2 haJFRKmoYbikZF27BNVIElHD9XUHc/8MxbI7LZWqKNwep5tWC5+4AKwkywPMs7GWOw Y8BQwrtyS9rGJlHxTGbdIFInS8qK3cGClF5U3rFyEy964gvU2W7Prr+uvya8lnZmee /ZCEMtdt5AgAaDnvIp+BJUnB6JZ3q3Fq6l/xVnVh0AWErlY9THSJF0QFVLtvE1Qdij 4Vl5FjYxLabZPnNxv2vCYzVyVtiVLO+tvZuFKM3b7NTOaXCqTo8SX9ZbwJir3cKMhe nQ0kLlq7mJ9Zg== From: "Bradley M. Kuhn" To: libc-alpha@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Seeking input from developers: glibc copyright assignment policy. Organization: Software Freedom Conservancy References: <877dibhvbz.fsf@ebb.org> Face: iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAADAAAAAwBAMAAAClLOS0AAAABGdBTUEAALGPC/xhBQAAABVQ TFRFAAAAWjotvpiH/PHt27Sj7sq8lXFeBchlBgAAAAFiS0dEAIgFHUgAAAAJcEhZcwAACxMAAAsT AQCanBgAAAAHdElNRQfiCx4VFw6omMmeAAACAklEQVQ4y43UPZPbIBAGYGdu0puzQ51bI+qMdXId r0F1RoLrwfb+/5+QF307VVR4PDxiF14h7Xa7t3q8LJGjavj7a1euCYiZnaPnv9DF4FyMLKdXOPs4 XM7KKzzKaF83gem+hUuF8QYUg7Fb4LEQAK1OG3hu4bbC3LpUC87+B9AMfQOg0yv0owEOK4x1+gnu M3yaV3jOMGxvKoXEKC9gAoabJtZYlXO8wJcb1hMHQClZgSj7cbzsY4a2vSqltIlz8nMpZnMkEmVw N4DtcYJo3AMPXFIMRMax/BjhOxZi2CpKKpWSZCd4C8aZ4CpzjR+Cint9WEp5H12IbbySEpHdaYVh OY9onf0Qq9//zDCFEW0MbFjUz7mHD1UdO4B3iErk9whdKdWVRuW5YLl5KnU2rjTBDyPmQImm5mec WQx7X3fBNwAzQ9kvBTKR0BwR3Bewhisn2mpkhea3BZwBcdorRlQk9QKecyZukRPeHTmuEL1FdjlJ tmTlvoAJPnRaMnKinNICn4QthNaKlNAlLae9sc5UODaelVh+l345u7ZMIY89GNdmWV8cIaTFlLGm QKLrzQykh/Aw02WsdoE2l1g7JIPdyWGFL6Hy1uJZsEjavLUXkVyeIdrbpPoXQHxDG0l68wEoW8vG BLI6qc2XoUEWCUI26aQfK1wypuwV7v6mtMhtgL8avOP/pBCiigAAAABJRU5ErkJggg== Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2021 12:33:11 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Siddhesh Poyarekar's message of "Thu, 1 Jul 2021 10:54:53 +0530") Message-ID: <87eechbzig.fsf@ebb.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: libc-alpha@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Libc-alpha mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2021 19:35:45 -0000 Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote at 22:24 (PDT) on Wednesday: > I strongly believe dropping the assignment requirement makes it easier for > developers to get involved. I absolutely agree, and as I indicated in my longer essay, I personally prefer a model where there is a good mix of copyrights held by individual contributors and charities both. That is not a new position of mine. My affiliation with the FSF ended in 2019, but when I previously had affiliation with the FSF, I was one of the few internal voices who advocated to relax the copyright assignment processes for GCC, *provided that* individuals rather companies held the non-FSF-assigned copyrights. I argued for that internally at the FSF on a semi-regular basis from 2002 right up until a few moths before my affiliation with the FSF ended in 2019. *However* =E2=80=A6=20 > I still don't expect the FSF ownership to be diluted by much for various > reasons. I think we can't know that for sure one way or the other =E2=80=94 unless s= omeone does the work to: (a) comb and collate VCS logs to document who the major contributors are, (b) figure out who their employers are (or were, or will be), (c) clearly examine how the copyright assignment / disclaimer of copyright relationships between those companies and the FSF are currently structured, and (d) do an analysis of what's likely to happen to those agreements once the copyright assignment requirement is lifted. Keep in mind that the copyright assignment/disclaimer arrangements have many forms and structures; IIUC, most can be revoked. Furthermore, I note that the deadline day for input on this momentous change is nearing its end, and there are no statements on this thread from the well-known major employers involved in glibc about what their intended copyright policy if the FSF copyright assignment mandate is lifted. Absent assurances and more information, we must assume the worst case: that the all new copyrights are owned by the contributors' employers as soon as the copyright assignment mandate is lifted. > That won't be too different from the Linux project, where a bulk of the > code in the core kernel originates from a handful of companies. This has led to many bad outcomes for Linux. While those outcomes can and have been (mostly) mitigated, I don't recommend glibc aim to emulate that model. > Even if there were dilution, I don't expect it to diverge too much from > the handful of organizations that currently pitch in to maintain glibc. Those organizations likely do not share a belief that copyleft should be enforced for the good of downstream users, so I think that point is bad news, not good news =E2=80=A6 which relates to your later point =E2=80=A6 > I'm under no illusion that for profit companies would actively seek out > violators and help get them on course to compliance since it does not > affect their core business. =E2=80=A6 with which I agree. Meanwhile, on the matter of potential Conservancy involvement: > The SFC enforcement coalition your colleague mentioned on the gcc list is > a great option IMO. I'm glad you think so, and Conservancy does have that form of arrangement with the Debian project. Debian's primary home in the USA is Software in the Public Interest, but they have a limited arrangement with Conservancy regarding voluntary copyright assignments for some contributors, and enforcement proxy agreements for those who own their copyrights. The best resource for how that program works is the original announcements: https://sfconservancy.org/news/2015/aug/17/debian/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2015/aug/17/debian/ Most importantly, keep in mind that major Debian contributors approached Conservancy to request this. Conservancy doesn't unilaterally start these kinds of programs; we do them when project contributors ask for them. We've offered to help generally, but no one has asked us for any specific assistance in the case of glibc, GCC, and gnulib. Beyond general comments and thoughts (such as this email), we *wouldn't* impose ourselves on the situation unless explicitly requested. IOW, at the moment, I and Conservancy aren't involved, other than to give our opinions as folks knowledgeable on the subject =E2=80=94 in response to the public call for c= omment: https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/2021-June/127581.html > I still expect the majority [of the copyright] =E2=80=A6 to stay with =E2= =80=A6 a handful > of companies, some of whom have been targets in the past of frivolous > copyright claims in Open Source code. I suppose it's possible that companies who contribute to glibc have also faced frivolous copyright claims on FOSS. (However, such incidents are extremely rare, though =E2=80=94 and, I'm admittedly wondering if you're re= ferencing the same widely exaggerated tale that I'm thinking of.) Regardless, I think it's a moot point. Such a situation doesn't imply those companies will later have the goal of defending the rights of users under copyleft. If relevant at all, IMO, it cuts the other way: those companies may seek copyrights for escalation/counter-claims against any enforcement action (even a legitimate one brought to defend users' rights). Note that, when they enforce the LGPL and GPL, Conservancy and FSF are both accused of being =E2=80=9Ccopyright trolls=E2=80=9D, and the Defendants *always* call those = claims =E2=80=9Cfrivolous=E2=80=9D. --=20 Bradley M. Kuhn - he/him Policy Fellow & Hacker-in-Residence at Software Freedom Conservancy =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Become a Conservancy Supporter today: https://sfconservancy.org/supporter