[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.