Clarification on association with the GNU Project

[Deep-Pandya]

Is Midnight Commander a part of GNU project?

GNU is a project for development of a complete Libre Unix-like operating system started by Dr. Richard M. Stallman in 1983.

GNU operating system consists of official GNU software packages and non-GNU, but libre software.

This page lists all official GNU software packages. A package named "mc" is listed there which stands for Midnight Commander and https://www.gnu.org/software/mc/ redirects to https://midnight-commander.org/

However, the project home page midnight-commander.org doesn't clarify whether it is part of GNU project or not.

So, I would like to ask the current maintainers: whether Midnight Commander is still a GNU project or not?

For more information on what does it mean to be a GNU software/package, visit Evaluation page.

If it is part of the GNU project, I request to add some visibility on our site and at the documentation, that can establish our association with the GNU project.

[zyv]

If it is part of the GNU project, I request to add some visibility on our site and at the documentation, that can establish our association with the GNU project.

So who are you, on whose behalf are you acting, and what "our" site are you referring to?

Some backstory is documented in #2335, which you apparently didn't consult. Before we go on, I would appreciate to get an answer to my questions above, and clarifying why you want to have this clarified would be helpful as well.

[ossilator]

The reason why I wanted to understand this is because using language like "I request" implies that you have some authority to request, as opposed to ask or suggest.

huh, deja vu? i did have that discussion before, but i'm not sure with whom.

anyway, the usual meaning of "request" is actually quite weak, like the german "bitte". unlike, say, "demand".
whether "ask" requires authority depends on whether it's "ask about" or "ask for", but even the latter has a lot of nuance.

It might be simply an artifact of English not being your native language, in which case I recommend you to look up the semantic difference.

how ironic. 😝

[ossilator]

now for the actual topic:

the question actually matters, because without a formal copyright assignment process, all the copyright blurbs in the source files are flat out wrong. which i'm positive they are.

[zyv]

The reason why I wanted to understand this is because using language like "I request" implies that you have some authority to request, as opposed to ask or suggest.

huh, deja vu? i did have that discussion before, but i'm not sure with whom.

anyway, the usual meaning of "request" is actually quite weak, like the german "bitte". unlike, say, "demand". whether "ask" requires authority depends on whether it's "ask about" or "ask for", but even the latter has a lot of nuance.

I don't think you've had it with me, at least it's nothing I can remember. I'm not sure where you source your interpretation of "request" though. I do concur that it's customary in former British territories to use the expressions as "I kindly request" to mean "I'm asking to please ...", but that's no standard contemporary English/American usage.

It might be simply an artifact of English not being your native language, in which case I recommend you to look up the semantic difference.

how ironic. 😝

Touché; further, "nativeness" as such does not necessarily imply a specific level of usage proficiency.

now for the actual topic:

the question actually matters, because without a formal copyright assignment process,

This conversation, on the contrary, I'm pretty sure we did have before, and here our opinions appear to differ in a more substantial way. The real question is what level of engagement during the "assignment" process would hold in relevant courts:

1. Only paper hand-signed agreement
2. Digital signatures as recognized by governments (§ 126a BGB / Art. 25 eIDAS)
3. Explicit non-qualifying digital signatures (like Google CLA bot and the like)
4. Implicit acceptance via sign-off tag in the commits and such

GNU is (or was?) of the opinion that only (1) would work. Many believe that (3) or even possibly (4) might work, but the only way to find out would be to start an enforcement action.

My decision is to do (4), because I'm not prepared to put any more effort into it, with the consequence of this possibly undermining any future enforcement action and perpetually locking in the codebase into GPLv3+ (or even GPLv2+ if you'd consider Andrew's move illegal, which one could reasonably assert it was).

all the copyright blurbs in the source files are flat out wrong. which i'm positive they are.

Now, the next question is what does "wrong" mean and does this matter in any way?

If you do believe it can work, then they aren't "flat out" wrong, unless failed enforcement actions in all relevant jurisdictions have proven them so. If you don't believe that the "assignment" process by (4) works, then the blurbs would become "the contributors to the mc project" without the "FSF" part.

As to the meaning, the whole circus has been set up by FSF to be able to upgrade the licenses all while revoking previous licenses (e.g. GPLv2+ to GPLv3+), which only the copyright holder can do.

My personal opinion on that is that this doesn't actually matter anymore and FSF has already won this battle, at the same time losing the war long time ago. In modern times, the challenges are different than the access to the source code, and the means to counter them will be also by necessity different.

If FSF chimes in and opines that the current process is unacceptable, and they want to have the copyrights "assigned" as (1), then the only logical consequence is that the current code base of mc must cease to be a GNU project and the blurbs have to drop "FSF", because collecting these assignments over 20 years is impossible irrespective of my opinions on whether it should be done or not.

If they don’t, I'm not making any new work for myself in which I don't see the point, and keep the status quo (like, I suspect, many other projects). I'd rather approach a completely different problem, as in moving to SPDX, because at least this has some practical relevance to me.

[ossilator]

process 2 is legally equivalent to process 1 in modern jurisdictions. if the fsf still thinks it isn't, it can get stuffed.
many companies with legal departments think that process 3 is sufficient. that's not relevant for the fsf, as it doesn't offer that process.
process 4 certainly doesn't qualify. one can't assign copyright unilaterally. also, the fsf does not think that dcos suffice.

given the reality that nobody in recent decades went through the motions of actually assigning copyright, it rests with every individual contributor. the blurbs would ideally reflect that; there are scripts that generate them from vcs histories.

[EDIT: i asked Teh Bot, and it confirmed my intuition; link provided.]

however, the blurbs don't actually have any legal meaning; they are informative only. an actual enforcement action would have to dig up the actual provenance from the git history, hosting platforms, and witness testimony. as such, it legally matters squat that the blurbs are all wrong.

the upgrade from gpl2+ to gpl3+ was perfectly legal; that's the whole point of the "or later" clause. what cannot be done is revoking gpl2 from older versions. if somebody wanted to continue with gpl2+, they would have to fork at the commit prior to the upgrade.

[ossilator]

ah, another quite pertinent point i stumbled over in my research: being a gnu project does not require copyright assignment. i.e., the copyright question is actually a red herring as far as the initial inquiry is concerned.