Legally, this is a screw. DO NOT sign this form.<p>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.<p>However, this assignment allows them to:<p>- Sell my GPL code to Apple for use in their new iPad<p>- Relicense my AGPL code under the BSD license (or vice-versa)<p>... 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.<p>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.<p>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."<p>I've seen not-for-profits drift from their roots, in one case, even selling all similar assets and rights to a for-profit.<p>(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)
Quick note that the SF Conservancy has been advancing a scary new approach to liability with GPL.<p>Historically, the rights and responsibilities related to GPL comes from the copyright holder. If the GPL was not followed, the person who wrote the code could optionally take action. This actually works out pretty well, because folks who actually code tend NOT to file frivioulus type legal cases and things were reasonable.<p>The SF Conservancy is now trying to SUE folks over using GPL code they had no hand in creating. This would let them leverage a very extreme position to after the fact re-write what the licensing meant. BTW, they have a long history of this poor behavior. Here is Linus Torvalds notes on them.<p>"I actually think we <i>should</i> talk about GPL enforcement at the kernel summit, because I think it's an important issue," Torvalds gently began, "but we should talk about it the way we talk about other issues: among kernel developers. No lawyers present unless they are in the capacity of a developer and maintainer of actual code, and in particular, <i>absolutely not the Software Freedom Conservancy</i>." - Linus Torvalds<p>Note this goes hand in hand with others attempts to re-write the GPL following their failures to force through the GPLv3 such as the EFF. This involves lots of handwaving and appeals to history but doesn't match what developers understood the GPLv2 to mean at all.<p>This shows that once you get the lawyers involved, it's seriously game over in some cases. Even though they were not lawyers, the early folks created very useful clear licenses.
Why can they not defend software rights without copyright assignment? Surely they could pay the legal fees for a third party!<p>More and more foundations are inserting themselves into the process of "developing" software. Most of them have handsomely paid directors, who parade at conferences and talk about how awesome free software is.<p>The actual developers are supposed to be silent work horses and deliver everything for free. They are increasingly treated as cogs whose names are never mentioned.
How can we trust that the SF Conservancy, or its successors, won't do something untoward with the copyright assignment?<p>Looking at their list of sponsors doesn't exactly assuage any such doubts as to their trustworthiness either.
"... aren't providing the source or repair and modification information that the
project's license requires ..."<p>I wasn't aware that open source requires you to provide "repair and modification information". I thought it just requires you to make source-code modified by you publicly available. Can anyone elaborate on what the "repair information" in particular refers to?
I wonder if this is a risk for Conservancy if some other party claims that some piece of GPLed software violates its rights somehow. Would other parties name Conservancy as a defendant in lawsuits if they learn that copyrights have been assigned to it? (Maybe there's some remedy that plaintiffs would sometimes like to try to get that only the copyright holder can provide, like assigning copyright <i>to a plaintiff</i> in a settlement?)