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 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.
“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 libc-alpha mailing list.
“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 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.”
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.
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 earlier this month following mailing list discussions raising concerns about its links to the FSF – triggered by its reinstatement of controversial board member Richard Stallman.
“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 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 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 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.” ®