Open-source projects glibc and gnulib look to sever copyright ties with Free Software Foundation
(2021/06/16)
- Reference: 1623846789
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2021/06/16/glibc_gnulib_fsf_copyright/
- Source link:
The GNU C Library (glibc) and GNU Portability Library (gnulib) are laying the groundwork to divorce themselves from the troubled Free Software Foundation by removing the requirement for copyright assignment.
This move follows in the footsteps of the same shift by the [1]GNU Compiler Collection (GCC) on 2 June.
Like many projects under the GNU umbrella, glibc and gnulib – the GNU Project's C standard library and a collection of subroutines designed to ease cross-platform porting respectively – allow anyone to contribute code. Those doing so are asked to assign copyright to the Free Software Foundation – for now, at least.
[2]
"The glibc stewards are seeking input from developers to decide if the project should relax the requirement to assign copyright for all changes to the Free Software Foundation," developer Carlos O'Donell announced in a post to the [3]libc-alpha mailing list .
[4]
[5]
"The changes to accept patches with or without FSF copyright assignment would be effective on August 2nd, and would apply to all open branches."
A follow-up request for input on the same topic was soon posted to the [6]bug-gnulib mailing list . "In many cases we simply copy from glibc," developer Paul Eggert confirmed in a reply to the original thread, "so we're using glibc's policy there. For non-glibc files, gnulib could stick with the current policy, or move to glibc's policy."
[7]
Responses to the proposal have been overwhelmingly positive. "I do not, and have never, had an assignment in place (it's a running joke that my patch contributions have been all-minus-signs)," wrote glibc contributor Rich Felker, "but given recent behaviour by the FSF board, I am completely unwilling to assign copyright to them in the future, so not making this change may affect my ability to contribute."
"As someone who has nagged about this at practically every Cauldron I've attended, I think this is a positive change and I fully endorse it," added Siddhesh Poyarekar. "The copyright assignment step has been a pretty significant hurdle for me in the past when I've tried to get more students in India involved in the GNU toolchain."
Under the proposed change, contributors would be asked to sign a Developer Certificate of Origin (DCO), originally written by the Linux Foundation and contributors, in which they assert the right to license the contribution as open source.
[8]
While a reason for the proposed shift hasn't been publicly given, the timing offers a hint. The GCC Steering Committee announced it was dropping the requirement for copyright assignment [9]earlier this month following mailing list discussions raising concerns about its links to the FSF – triggered by its reinstatement of [10]controversial board member Richard Stallman .
[11]Stallman's final interview as FSF president: Last week we quizzed him over Microsoft visit. Now he quits top roles amid rape remarks outcry
[12]Richard Stallman says he has returned to the Free Software Foundation board of directors and won't be resigning again
[13]Red Hat pulls Free Software Foundation funding over Richard Stallman's return
[14]Code contributions to GCC no longer have to be assigned to FSF, says compiler body
"He has allowed the GNU Project to become a nasty cult of personality," GCC developer Jonathan Wakely claimed in the discussions preceeding the change in contribution requirements. "The FSF seems to be imploding (with mass resignations in the past week). I don't think GCC benefits from being associated with either of them."
Stallman had stepped down from the his role as FSF president and board member in September 2019 following criticism of his behaviour and public comments on issues including child abuse, some [15]made in defence of his friend and MIT professor Marvin Minsky, who was accused of having slept with a 17-year-old allegedly trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein. In a 2006 post [16]still on his website , Stallman declared himself to be "skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children."
"Some of you will be happy at this," Stallman said of his return to the FSF in March this year, "and some might be disappointed, but who knows? In any case, that's how it is, and I'm not planning to resign a second time."
With the FSF choosing to back Stallman, it's clear that a growing number of FSF-aligned projects – including Red Hat, which [17]pulled its funding following Stallman's reinstatement – sit firmly in the "disappointed" camp.
Andrew Katz, managing partner and head of tech and IP at Moorcrofts Corporate Law, said of the move: "My view is that the GPL is sufficient in itself. For GPL, licence in = licence out seems to be the fairest approach from both the developers' and the project's perspective, and it means that, ultimately, the developers remain in control of their code.
"Recent questions about governance of the FSF (specifically, concerning RMS's departure and reinstatement) may cause people to be concerned about the quality of that governance as regards licensing decisions. Assigning copyright to an organisation requires a significant amount of trust, and developers may understandably be concerned that trusting a third party (whether a business or a not-for-profit) presents a greater risk than retaining their own rights in the code." ®
Get our [18]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2021/06/02/gcc_fsf_code_copyright/
[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2YMogILbK47rfPH6kqsxKQgAAAIc&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[3] https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/2021-June/127581.html
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YMogILbK47rfPH6kqsxKQgAAAIc&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33YMogILbK47rfPH6kqsxKQgAAAIc&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://lists.gnu.org/r/bug-gnulib/2021-06/msg00079.html
[7] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YMogILbK47rfPH6kqsxKQgAAAIc&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[8] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33YMogILbK47rfPH6kqsxKQgAAAIc&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2021/06/02/gcc_fsf_code_copyright/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2021/03/22/richard_stallman_back_on_fsf_board/
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2019/09/17/richard_stallman_final_interview/
[12] https://www.theregister.com/2021/03/22/richard_stallman_back_on_fsf_board/
[13] https://www.theregister.com/2021/03/26/redhat_fsf_funding_richard_stallman/
[14] https://www.theregister.com/2021/06/02/gcc_fsf_code_copyright/
[15] https://www.theregister.com/2019/09/17/richard_stallman_final_interview/
[16] https://stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.html
[17] https://www.theregister.com/2021/03/26/redhat_fsf_funding_richard_stallman/
[18] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
This move follows in the footsteps of the same shift by the [1]GNU Compiler Collection (GCC) on 2 June.
Like many projects under the GNU umbrella, glibc and gnulib – the GNU Project's C standard library and a collection of subroutines designed to ease cross-platform porting respectively – allow anyone to contribute code. Those doing so are asked to assign copyright to the Free Software Foundation – for now, at least.
[2]
"The glibc stewards are seeking input from developers to decide if the project should relax the requirement to assign copyright for all changes to the Free Software Foundation," developer Carlos O'Donell announced in a post to the [3]libc-alpha mailing list .
[4]
[5]
"The changes to accept patches with or without FSF copyright assignment would be effective on August 2nd, and would apply to all open branches."
A follow-up request for input on the same topic was soon posted to the [6]bug-gnulib mailing list . "In many cases we simply copy from glibc," developer Paul Eggert confirmed in a reply to the original thread, "so we're using glibc's policy there. For non-glibc files, gnulib could stick with the current policy, or move to glibc's policy."
[7]
Responses to the proposal have been overwhelmingly positive. "I do not, and have never, had an assignment in place (it's a running joke that my patch contributions have been all-minus-signs)," wrote glibc contributor Rich Felker, "but given recent behaviour by the FSF board, I am completely unwilling to assign copyright to them in the future, so not making this change may affect my ability to contribute."
"As someone who has nagged about this at practically every Cauldron I've attended, I think this is a positive change and I fully endorse it," added Siddhesh Poyarekar. "The copyright assignment step has been a pretty significant hurdle for me in the past when I've tried to get more students in India involved in the GNU toolchain."
Under the proposed change, contributors would be asked to sign a Developer Certificate of Origin (DCO), originally written by the Linux Foundation and contributors, in which they assert the right to license the contribution as open source.
[8]
While a reason for the proposed shift hasn't been publicly given, the timing offers a hint. The GCC Steering Committee announced it was dropping the requirement for copyright assignment [9]earlier this month following mailing list discussions raising concerns about its links to the FSF – triggered by its reinstatement of [10]controversial board member Richard Stallman .
[11]Stallman's final interview as FSF president: Last week we quizzed him over Microsoft visit. Now he quits top roles amid rape remarks outcry
[12]Richard Stallman says he has returned to the Free Software Foundation board of directors and won't be resigning again
[13]Red Hat pulls Free Software Foundation funding over Richard Stallman's return
[14]Code contributions to GCC no longer have to be assigned to FSF, says compiler body
"He has allowed the GNU Project to become a nasty cult of personality," GCC developer Jonathan Wakely claimed in the discussions preceeding the change in contribution requirements. "The FSF seems to be imploding (with mass resignations in the past week). I don't think GCC benefits from being associated with either of them."
Stallman had stepped down from the his role as FSF president and board member in September 2019 following criticism of his behaviour and public comments on issues including child abuse, some [15]made in defence of his friend and MIT professor Marvin Minsky, who was accused of having slept with a 17-year-old allegedly trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein. In a 2006 post [16]still on his website , Stallman declared himself to be "skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children."
"Some of you will be happy at this," Stallman said of his return to the FSF in March this year, "and some might be disappointed, but who knows? In any case, that's how it is, and I'm not planning to resign a second time."
With the FSF choosing to back Stallman, it's clear that a growing number of FSF-aligned projects – including Red Hat, which [17]pulled its funding following Stallman's reinstatement – sit firmly in the "disappointed" camp.
Andrew Katz, managing partner and head of tech and IP at Moorcrofts Corporate Law, said of the move: "My view is that the GPL is sufficient in itself. For GPL, licence in = licence out seems to be the fairest approach from both the developers' and the project's perspective, and it means that, ultimately, the developers remain in control of their code.
"Recent questions about governance of the FSF (specifically, concerning RMS's departure and reinstatement) may cause people to be concerned about the quality of that governance as regards licensing decisions. Assigning copyright to an organisation requires a significant amount of trust, and developers may understandably be concerned that trusting a third party (whether a business or a not-for-profit) presents a greater risk than retaining their own rights in the code." ®
Get our [18]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2021/06/02/gcc_fsf_code_copyright/
[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2YMogILbK47rfPH6kqsxKQgAAAIc&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[3] https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/2021-June/127581.html
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YMogILbK47rfPH6kqsxKQgAAAIc&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33YMogILbK47rfPH6kqsxKQgAAAIc&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://lists.gnu.org/r/bug-gnulib/2021-06/msg00079.html
[7] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YMogILbK47rfPH6kqsxKQgAAAIc&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[8] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33YMogILbK47rfPH6kqsxKQgAAAIc&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2021/06/02/gcc_fsf_code_copyright/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2021/03/22/richard_stallman_back_on_fsf_board/
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2019/09/17/richard_stallman_final_interview/
[12] https://www.theregister.com/2021/03/22/richard_stallman_back_on_fsf_board/
[13] https://www.theregister.com/2021/03/26/redhat_fsf_funding_richard_stallman/
[14] https://www.theregister.com/2021/06/02/gcc_fsf_code_copyright/
[15] https://www.theregister.com/2019/09/17/richard_stallman_final_interview/
[16] https://stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.html
[17] https://www.theregister.com/2021/03/26/redhat_fsf_funding_richard_stallman/
[18] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: Why assign copyright?
doublelayer
In practice, this is not required to pursue copyright claims. An owner of some of the copyright has a claim to litigate copyright violations of the entire thing, but if that argument is deemed insufficient, they can litigate the parts they own, without which the rest doesn't work, and obtain the same result. Having multiple copyright holders can help here because the FSF itself wouldn't have a monopoly on deciding whether some use was acceptable or not, so people considering violating would have to stick to the GPL more clearly.
I agree that the FSF is likely to continue to enforce the licenses as they already have done--Stallman is not the kind of person who would want more lax licensing. Still, I don't think the policy is at all necessary, so if projects choose to change the policy in order to indicate their feelings about unrelated FSF decisions, I see no harm in it.
Why assign copyright?
It may be pertinent to note why anyone would have assigned their copyright to the FSF in the first place:
[1]https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign
> Under US copyright law, which is the law under which most free software programs have historically been first published, there are very substantial procedural advantages to registration of copyright. And despite the broad right of distribution conveyed by the GPL, enforcement of copyright is generally not possible for distributors: only the copyright holder or someone having assignment of the copyright can enforce the license. If there are multiple authors of a copyrighted work, successful enforcement depends on having the cooperation of all authors.
> In order to make sure that all of our copyrights can meet the recordkeeping and other requirements of registration, and in order to be able to enforce the GPL most effectively, FSF requires that each author of code incorporated in FSF projects provide a copyright assignment, and, where appropriate, a disclaimer of any work-for-hire ownership claims by the programmer's employer. That way we can be sure that all the code in FSF projects is free code, whose freedom we can most effectively protect, and therefore on which other developers can completely rely.
So, if you care about people actually obeying the license, and don't want to bother engaging with infringement legal action yourself, copyright assignment to the FSF may be advantageous to you. Personally, I don't see any of the FSF board's recent actions as impinging on their ability or intent to defend and enforce Free Software licenses.
[1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign