GNU C Library Looking To Drop FSF Copyright Assignment Policy

[torsionbar28]

The problem arose around GPLv3, which a lot of contributors weren't on board with; centralized copyright assignment made it possible for a "project" to switch to GPLv3 even when that project's community wouldn't want it.

Another possible origin is bordalou, a portable ladies’ privy looking something like a gravy boat and carried in a muff.

[Termy]

You only get a promise in return, that the FSF is not going after you, if you use your own code elsewhere. Because its not your code anymore.

I am giving away my code for free for anyone to use, then I'd pick MIT/BSD or public domain, certainly not GPL.

one has nothing to do with the other or am i missing something?!

The decision between MIT/BSD and GPL is (mainly) if you want closed source projects to be able to use your code without giving back. (In practice its more complicated of course with license incompatibility and so on)

[Ironmask]

The Open Source community has a notable man called Stallman. When he was young, he wanted to write his own software, but everything he wrote ended up becoming a notepad. Once upon a time, struggling with implementing the “onKey” event, he found a letter from a Finnish student who wanted to write his own OS. He wrote, in particular, “hello, I’m 17 and I wrote a bootloader, pls help me write the rest, my OS is almost ready. Linus from Finland”. Stallman responded: “Hello, my name is Richard Stallman, I’ve already written a notepad for Unix and I think I can help you write your own OS, young man” The first thing Richard did was to try write a kernel for Linus’ bootloader, which he called The hURD. Unfortunately, once again it ended up being a text editor. Linus was angry and then another person, called Cox, came and wrote the whole kernel. He was a very good British man who could not stand others feel bad. Stallman, seeing how his fame is being stolen by Cox, said: “I have already written many notepads for the Linux system, you cannot just delete it all”. Linux had to agree, due to their friendship, and left all the notepads inside the Linux. It was renamed to “the GNU’. To this day, even in 2015, we can enjoy the beauty of Stallman’s genius. For example, there’s a program which takes one file and renames it to another file. Also, there’s a program which deletes a file. Windows doesn’t have such things. Just imagine Linux without such software.

Stallman’s magnum opus is emacs. It’s one of his notepads where he put a scripting language into. Only a visioner is capable of writing a text editor and putting a scripting language there. Some may say it’s 1 grade students’ project, but they will be wrong, as Stallman didn’t put there Basic or Pascal — he’s put there Lisp. It’s a very powerful language, because it’s functional (Basic and Pascal are called dysfunctional). From what I understood reading Wikipedia, functional languages are very awesome because they’re very math. Only smartest people can code in them because it’s too math for common people. Basic is not enough math, C is not enough math, Lisp is a lot of math because it’s functional. So emacs has Lisp in it, so it’s a very good editor made by a innovator and a genius, who understands math and functions.

When he turned 62, Stallman got a bit tired of writing notepads, so he founded Free Software Foundation to promote his ideas. The foundation’s main idea is that you cannot use a program unless it’s written by Stallman himself. He believes that anything not written by Stallman is potentially a patent troll and a vendor lock-in, because there’re no guarantees to Stallman, and only Stallman gives guarantees to himself. And we again return to the topic of notepads, unfortunately. In a perfect world, there are not other programs, but notepads written by Richard Stallman. Preferably with LISPs inside (no less than 85% functional). Maybe Stallman is right, maybe he is wrong, I can’t tell for sure. What I know for sure is that he’s a visioner, an innovator, and we definitely should at least consider his opinion.

[brent]

Another significant issue with copyright assignment is that it it often becomes a bureaucratic obstacle. If you're a small contributor it's often not worth the effort.

[coder]

You only get a promise in return, that the FSF is not going after you, if you use your own code elsewhere. Because its not your code anymore.

Yeah, but that's only if you transfer the copyright and their license doesn't permit the other things you want to do with it (such as contributing it to a project with an incompatible license or using in closed source).

I am giving away my code for free for anyone to use, then I'd pick MIT/BSD or public domain, certainly not GPL.

If you retain the copyright, then you can still use GPL, today. Later, if you ever change your mind or want to offer your software for inclusion in closed source software, there's nothing preventing you from offering it under different or additional licenses, at that time.

[coder]

The Open Source community has a notable man called Stallman. When he was young, he wanted to write his own software, but everything he wrote ended up becoming a notepad. Once upon a time, struggling with implementing the “onKey” event, he found a letter from a Finnish student who wanted to write his own OS. He wrote, in particular, “hello, I’m 17 and I wrote a bootloader, pls help me write the rest, my OS is almost ready. Linus from Finland”.

WTF is this? Is it some kind of internet meme copypasta?

It might be amusing for those who know the real history, but it's just going to confuse the heck out of people who don't.

even in 2015, we can enjoy the beauty of Stallman’s genius. For example, there’s a program which takes one file and renames it to another file. Also, there’s a program which deletes a file. Windows doesn’t have such things. Just imagine Linux without such software.

Dude, the FSF wrote gcc, ld, libc, among many other tools and libs.

Whatever you think about Stallman and Emacs, a UNIX OS ain't shit without userspace tools or a C compiler. That's what FSF contributed, besides their GPL for the kernel.

I'm no fan of Stallman, but this turd should've been left in 2015.

[coder]

Another significant issue with copyright assignment is that it it often becomes a bureaucratic obstacle. If you're a small contributor it's often not worth the effort.

Huh? For small-time contributors, is there even anything to do?

The issue I see is more for big companies, where you have to get legal an managerial sign-off to transfer ownership of the company's IP.

[aht0]

WTF is this? Is it some kind of internet meme copypasta?
It might be amusing for those who know the real history, but it's just going to confuse the heck out of people who don't.
Dude, the FSF wrote gcc, ld, libc, among many other tools and libs.
Whatever you think about Stallman and Emacs, a UNIX OS ain't shit without userspace tools or a C compiler. That's what FSF contributed, besides their GPL for the kernel.
I'm no fan of Stallman, but this turd should've been left in 2015.

Pray tell, WHICH "Unix OS" was based on FSF-copyrighted stuff? macOS? AIX? Solaris? z/OS? Lots of wishful thinking there...
Linux and GNU's Hurd are as far from Unix as biplane is from a jet fighter.

[Danielsan]

...

Please do not feed the troll...

[brent]

Huh? For small-time contributors, is there even anything to do?

The issue I see is more for big companies, where you have to get legal an managerial sign-off to transfer ownership of the company's IP.

I think there's an exclusion if you change less than 10 lines or something like that, but unless that applies, yes you do have to fill out the paperwork and get it recognized by FSF. It doesn't matter whether the contribution comes from an individual or a company.