Protecting the open-source license commons [LWN.net]

Protecting the open-source license commons

Posted Nov 14, 2018 15:58 UTC (Wed) by paulj (subscriber, #341)
In reply to: Protecting the open-source license commons by bkuhn
Parent article: Protecting the open-source license commons

The Conservancy doesn't hold any copyrights in these violations because the application to join the Conservancy went nowhere, for reasons never communicated to me. Even though you personally reached out to me in '17 encouraging me to apply. Eventually, after 9 months odd of waiting (and other reasons) I gave up waiting to hear back.

So yes, you don't hold the copyright.

On whether I can stick to the Principles in any enforcement I do myself. I have no idea. The Principles are - at best - contain statements in tension with each (if not self-contradictory) and need interpretation, and you refuse to give direct answers to requests for clarifications.

I do wish you and the Conservancy all the best, in furthering the interests of the community the Conservancy represents. (Regrettably, it doesn't include me, but you can't say I didn't try to join it ;) ).

to post comments

Protecting the open-source license commons

Posted Nov 15, 2018 18:13 UTC (Thu) by bkuhn (subscriber, #58642) [Link] (1 responses)

paulj, I have an email from you on 2017-11-10 in which you say "there was no point in pursuing SF Conservancy" membership for your project. That's the reason we didn't proceed.

As for "inviting you to apply", as a matter of historical record, the first inquiry about joining was indeed from *you* in Feb 2017. I do see in April 2017 I joined the thread, responding to your Feb 2017 inquiry (which Karen and already answered twice in Feb and March) and encouraged you to submit the application materials. We do write back to project leaders and encourage them to apply after they've shown initial interest, but that's not the same as "reaching out" as a cold contact, which your prior posts seem to indicate. (I think the number of times Conservancy has contacted projects on a cold-contact basis and asked them to apply is less than three in our more than ten years of existence. Our typical experience is we have a large queue of inquiries and cannot possible accept all the projects who want to join us given our limited resources.)

It's not uncommon from the date the application is submitted to acceptance in Conservancy to take 6-8 months. We got your application on 2017-04-12 and sent you updates along the way, and then received the withdraw of your application on 2017-11-10 and removed it from the queue. We carefully vet applications and make sure the project is a good fit. I'm sorry that timeline didn't work well for your project; we are not the right fit for fiscal sponsorship of all projects by any means, and there are less involved fiscal sponsors with smaller service plans (i.e., who don't do GPL enforcement) that can accept a project faster. Our commitment to our projects is stronger than most fiscal sponsors so we have to be deliberate in our decision-making.

Anyway, thanks for your kind words for Conservancy and I wish you success in resolving GPL violations on your copyrights. If you have questions about the principles, there is a mailing list for it, principles-discuss, as I mentioned in an earlier thread.

Protecting the open-source license commons

Posted Nov 28, 2018 15:51 UTC (Wed) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]

I don't know, I didn't hear from the Conservancy for 3 months after the month where I'd been told the application would be considered. Maybe it's my fault for being impatient, and not realising it would take 8+ months to even look at the application. ;) Doesn't matter anyway.

I wish you well. I do though hope you process my concerns on the Principles as they are, with regard to the lack of clarity (at least) on points that are very important to the practicality of enforcement in at least some places. It seems I am not alone. As you're now aware of those concerns, I don't see a reason why I need to post to another mailing list (I've been subscribed to that list for a good while FWIW, if you want to discuss further and post there I'll see it).

All the best.