[blagie]

Legally, this is a screw. DO NOT sign this form.

I'd love for SFC to have _joint_ copyright with me. I'd be glad to assign them copyright to odd lines of my code, while I keep the even ones, for instance. If they do enforcement for me, that's great. If damages help sustain their operations, so much the better.

However, this assignment allows them to:

- Sell my GPL code to Apple for use in their new iPad

- Relicense my AGPL code under the BSD license (or vice-versa)

... and so on. The whole point of free software licenses is to act as a sort of constitution or code-of-conduct. This just hands over the keys to the castle.

I would love to have this service, but I would never blindly hand over my copyright like this. I would definitely NOT sign anything with language like "irrevocably appoints Conservancy as their attorney-in-fact to take any necessary steps to perfect Conservancy’s rights under this Agreement." This just feels predatory.

I'm not attributing malice, but SFC should go back and draft an agreement that's fair to both sides. SFC should guarantee basic rights, such as that the license won't be changed without my permission, not "The Conservancy will use its discretion for any relicensing of the Works under other free and open source software licenses. Decisions about relicensing made by Conservancy will apply to its assignees and successors."

I've seen not-for-profits drift from their roots, in one case, even selling all similar assets and rights to a for-profit.

(As a footnote, if they wanted this to be sustainable, they might give the assignor some portion of damages if they ever need to enforce the license)

[lakecresva]

The relicensing language is not entirely unreasonable in my opinion. There are huge portions of open source copyright thinking that have never actually been analyzed by an appellate court, and none of it has ever been seriously examined by the Supreme Court. In the event that some core component(s) of your favorite flavor of the GPL are found to be unsound or some other legal catastrophe happens, they need the ability to switch to something else if they don't want to just close up shop. The idea of trying to contact every copyright holder and having to bargain with them over relicensing sounds like a nightmare, and contractual language like "relicensing of the Works under a substantially similar license" is a non-starter.

You're taking a risk. Do you think they're going to try and hijack your copyright for some nefarious purpose, or do you think they might need flexibility in relicensing your work in the future?

[akerl_]

I’m not sure I’m grokking this. As you note, the hard part about changing license is if the copyright for a project is jointly held by a large number of contributors.

Contacting all those contributors to get them to agree to a license change is a large undertaking. But assigning the copyright to the SFC Conservancy also requires contacting all of them for their agreement. If my concern is ensuring flexibility in licensing, the original developer might as well just contact them all and have them sign a CLA or similar, granting control of the copyright to themselves. Then they’ve got the same flexibility, without needing the SFC.

[dhzhzjsbevs]

> Contacting all those contributors to get them to agree to a license change is a large undertaking.

With the right licensing language it doesn't need to be.

Authors must maintain contactability through emails listed in source / git commits, if authors fail to respond to pings about changes to licensing in a timely manner they forfeit their rights.

[akerl_]

> Authors must maintain contactability through emails listed in source / git commits, if authors fail to respond to pings about changes to licensing in a timely manner they forfeit their rights.

That’s just not the case.

[lakecresva]

I meant each author who accepts their offer and assigns their copyrights, not each contributor to an individual project.

[blagie]

I think it is almost guaranteed that they will try to relicense my work for some nefarious purpose at some point in their history. I think it is highly unlikely to happen while their current leadership is in place.

FSF leadership is currently having a crisis since, due to recent events, they realized that Stallman is not eternal. FSF-owned code is an incredible asset. If there were a corporate takeover of the FSF, that could have very bad outcomes.

Regarding contacting every owner, that'd be a nightmare in 1960. In 2022: "We will contact you at the email address on file," an ability to opt in / opt out via web form, and some language about changing to equivalent media (e.g. SMS, fax, robocall, USPS, AOL Instant Messenger, or whatever).

I'll mention I picked out a few examples of nasty legal language. The whole agreement is nasty, unfair, and one-sided. I like the concept a lot, but I'd never sign language like that. I like working with organizations who try to be fair to both sides.

Oh -- and for language which applies to "successors" -- all bets are off. I specifically do not want the SFC to assign my copyright to a successor. I've seen specific examples where a successor to a non-profit was a for-profit.

[lakecresva]

What you seem to want is pro bono representation, which is just not what they're offering. It's apples to oranges. Achieving something that approaches your idea of fairness would require negotiation and the maintenance of an ongoing legally significant relationship. I don't know much about the politics of the SF Conservancy, but the language in the contract they're offering does not jump out as especially unfair or extreme. Accounting for details like successors in interest is how lawyers write tight contracts.

[blagie]

No, pro bono representation would mean I'd get the damages. I'm supportive of SFC getting the damages.

What I want -- both for myself and for the community -- is checks-and-balances to make sure SFC continues doing things in the interest of myself, and more broadly, of the community. A single entity holding a pile of copyrights to FLOSS, with no checks-and-balances, is a liability to the community.

I lose respect for an organization in this business who doesn't understand checks-and-balances and oversight.

[wrycoder]

SFC is an enemy of Richard Stallman.

In spite of the fact that the SFC would not exist without RMS, they explicitly supported the attempt to eject him from the Free Software Foundation on the basis of trumped up allegations.

The SFC is Brad Kuhn's attempt to profit off the GPL, which he couldn't do when he was associated with the FSF or the Software Freedom Law Center.

[paulv]

You can take a look at the 990's, Bradley is _definitely_ NOT getting rich off of his work with the SFC.

[smitop]

For anyone curious, Bradley made $141k in 2020 including benefits (the deadline for their 2021 return is yet to pass): https://sfconservancy.org/docs/software-freedom-conservancy_...

[simfree]

Ah, so the same as a software developer at a mid-size government agency?

[rasz]

While not doing any software development, sounds great to me.

[wrycoder]

Yeah, he is "Treasurer, et. al." on the 990 and "Policy Fellow and Hacker-in-Residence" on the SFC site's Board list.

After he left the FSF he joined the Software Freedom Law Center (Eben Moglen's operation), but only lasted a year. He then started the Software Freedom Conservancy, which resulted in a lawsuit from the SFLC, due the similarity in name and focus.

[wumpus]

Mid-career developer in the US government, yes.

[wrycoder]

Meanwhile, John Sullivan, ED of the FSF itself, made $112K, including benefits. That is more in line with a small educational foundation.

[swores]

I don't know anything about the person or the org, but there's clear difference between "attempt to profit" which was the accusation and "getting rich", both in that one requires success and that one can come before the other. And from the other reply to you stating a six-figure salary it would seem he is profiting, even if it's a perfectly reasonable amount.

[panny]

I don't care if he makes money. The important part of GP's post was,

>they explicitly supported the attempt to eject him from the Free Software Foundation on the basis of trumped up allegations

[dragonwriter]

> I'd be glad to assign them copyright to odd lines of my code, while I keep the even ones, for instance

Individual lines of code (or even the odd or even lines as a whole, separate from the other) don't seem likely to usually be works subject to copyright.

[bawolff]

> I'd love for SFC to have _joint_ copyright with me. I'd be glad to assign them copyright to odd lines of my code, while I keep the even ones, for instance

Jointly owning the copyright is different from them owning half and you owning half.

[LightHugger]

presumably that is why he listed both options separately.

[bawolff]

"For instance" means an example, not an alternative.

[LightHugger]

Ah, i see what you mean now. I read it the other way initially.

[blagie]

You can read it as you like.

It's the fine art of picking apart emails and internet comments for typos and grammar, rather than for meaning, and then nitpicking (referring to baawolf, not LightHugger).

I sometimes flip words when I type. I might have a completely wrong word, repeat something, omit a word, or otherwise. Others do that too. Part of that is typos, and part of that is rewriting as a type. I don't recall what I was thinking, but I suspect I started with "example," edited to "alternative," and didn't re-edit the whole post.

Others do similar things. Worse, plenty of people make errors on the internet. A few lessons I've learned:

- I stopped freaking out when Someone Is Wrong on the Internet. There's enough of that I don't need to correct all of it, and I don't think people doing that are performing much of a public service.

- I use throwaway accounts. Forums like this are more fun if I can talk naturally. I might have be aware of the fine distinctions between joint and half-ownership, but didn't spend hours proofreading a random internet comment, since that would take HN from a fine distraction to a chore. The internet is more fun if I e.g. don't need to be cancelled by the woke crowd over a typo. I think real names on Twitter are a horrible idea, since I'd never engage in any forum where I might be held publicly accountable for every mistake, braino, typo, and bad idea.

- Conversely, I look for smart things people say, insights, and good ideas. I simply ignore dumb ones. I read far-right, far-left, foreign propaganda, and other sources of questionable information. My experience is that there is a mixture of falsehoods and insights I wouldn't have come across elsewhere. I learn a lot. Plus, reading critically, I know what different groups are exposed to.

Oh -- and this is doubly true for WFH and emails. If you assume people always believe what they wrote (as opposed to omitting a "not" mid-sentence) -- you'll run into trouble.

That's an off-topic rant, but I hope it settles the question. I meant neither of those, and didn't edit that deeply.

[mistrial9]

> not-for-profits drift from their roots, in one case, even selling all similar assets and rights to a for-profit

that is a neat trick, since a non-profit cannot own and sell assets like that, that I know of, in the USA. details? hogwash?

[ceph_]

Non-profits can absolutely sell assets to for-profit institutions. See: Every non-profit that sells things.

Or for a nefarious but legal example, see the attempted selling off the rights to the .org TLD rights by ICANN. https://thenextweb.com/news/hurray-the-org-tld-wont-be-sold-...

[bawolff]

Non-profits can sell assets if its in accordance with their mission. Why wouldn't they be able to?

[mikeyouse]

They can sell them if not in accordance with their mission by paying taxes on the sale as well (UBIT). There are very few restrictions on what a nonprofit can and can’t do.

https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/tools-resources/unrelate...

[mistrial9]

in the USA ? that is absolutely not true.. could an actual experienced attorney please look into this ... I think you people are confused about "selling t-shirts" versus disposal of actual assets.

[samatman]

I think you're confused about what an asset is.

Be it a T-shirt, a building, or IP, if a nonprofit owns it they can sell or license it.

[mistrial9]

blatent contradictory statements here, without substantiation.. Do I have to find the legal documents on demand of this thread? this is USA non-profit law that is being discussed? settled law ?

[cmeacham98]

The only contradictions here are basically every commenter contradicting your (obviously incorrect) assertion that non-profits cannot sell assets to for-profit entities in the US.

When you make the claim, you are generally expected to provide proof, yes that's how it works.

[mistrial9]

start here? https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/private-foundation...

[cmeacham98]

Can you please quote the part of that document that you think substantiates your claim? All I found was unrelated information about the "termination of a private foundation". The words 'sale' and 'sell' appear zero times in the whole page.

[blagie]

The example I know of, I can't talk about. What happened was likely illegal, but in the grey zone. Individuals profited to the tune of millions individually, and the transaction was in the hundreds of millions. Law enforcement never got involved, so I'll never know what a court might have decided.

However, I'd encourage you to look into hospitals, industry groups like the RIAA, family foundations like the Trump Foundation, and similar organizations. You can find your own examples easily enough.

That's not to mention non-profits hijacked for new purposes (e.g. the current move away from founding values to woke values for a few organizations that's been bugging HN commentators lately).

(And yes, I do know the difference between a 501(c)3, 501(c)6, family foundation, etc).

[mistrial9]

> What happened was likely illegal, but in the grey zone.

this

[lokar]

Search for "deaccession" as an example

[mistrial9]

this is probably reasonable .. the others are less so

[lokar]

I could imagine:

"In order to raise money to protect free software we have to transfer this one license to Oracle"

[mistrial9]

yes, that might be a danger given the context. agree. I would like an opinion about transfer of assets from 501(c)x to a (edit) for-profit corporation though.. some of these statements are just not true in the articles of non-profit taxation, last I looked into it.

[dragonwriter]

> I would like an opinion about transfer of assets from 501(c)x to a corporation though

Most 501c entities are corporations.

You probably mean “to a business entity that is not itself a 501c”, but generally a 501c is free to sell assets to other entities without regard to form or (absence of) nonprofit status, though there are other restrictions that might come into play.

[mistrial9]

people here do not understand that a for-profit company seeks to avoid or minimize tax, and that simple flipping of (appreciating) assets from a non-profit and back could be used extensively to avoid tax ? and that the IRS specifically precludes that, in the articles of non-profit incorporation? not "selling t-shirts or anything else in line with the mission" but held assets? there is some term I am missing, and I think Commonwealth countries are also taking turns here.. there is too much distance in the points of view .. there have to be some assumptions unsaid