Re: How to contribute

[Ralph Corderoy]

Hi Michał,

> > > > Alas, groff's requirement for copyright assignment to the FSF
> > > > ruled out contributions from me many years ago after the FSF's
> > > > legal counsel confirmed they'd hold partial copyright on a
> > > > non-groff work which contained code of copyrightable expression
> > > > if I later used it in groff; the order in time doesn't matter.
> > > > The FSF want 100% ownership to enforce copyright but deny 100%
> > > > ownership of that earlier work in doing so.
> > > 
> > > I do not get this.  Can you elaborate or provide an example?
> > 
> > Say I write a 25-line function in a program which is all my own
> > work.  A year later, I'm adding a feature to GNU groff and realise
> > that function can be re-used. GNU groff's maintainer rightly
> > requires a copyright assignment before accepting the contribution
> > which includes that function.  If I provide the assignment, I am
> > granting the FSF partial copyright over the program written a year
> > earlier which is all my own work because of that sole re-used
> > function.

I note you didn't question that the order in time doesn't matter.

> > Amongst other problems, signing copyright assignments can cause a
> > lot of hassle when lawyers do due diligence. What did you sign away?
> > What did you think it covered? What did it actually cover? Are you
> > the sole owner of what you're selling to our client?
>
> I do not believe it works this way.  It would be extremely stupid.

It is surprising to programmers how the law works and thus how lawyers
think.

> I can image this applies when you copy large amount of code, but
> single 25 lines function?

It applies if ‘foo() [is] a copyrightable work with copyrightable
expression’, to use the FSF's legal counsel's words.  Which I think is
the same judgement GNU groff's maintainer uses when deciding if a
copyright assignment is required for a contribution.

A bug fix of a few lines doesn't count.  But here, the counsel and I were
talking about a single function, foo(), which was not ‘so short’ or
simply ‘functional’ that expression could be judged not to exist.

> No one would contribute to GNU projects if it worked like this.

I read the copyright assignment carefully.  I had questions which I put
to the FSF's Assignments department.  They couldn't answer and passed me
onto their legal counsel.  The counsel were very helpful.

I expect most of those who complete the copyright assignment do not read
it carefully, do not then think up what-if's, and do not then make the
effort to get them answered.

Many who do sign it will not have any problems afterwards.  They will
not have their own work checked by lawyers.  They will not be violating
an agreement with their employer or future employer.  Or they won't
realise they are and it won't come to light.  But that doesn't mean the
FSF's interpretation of their copyright assignment doesn't exist.

-- 
Cheers, Ralph.