This is correct, but it's up to the maintainer to decide if their project will require copyright assignment from all contributors or not. I send patches to a couple of GNU projects, Guile and Guix. Guile requires copyright assignment, Guix does not.

Assigning copyright to the FSF is very much unlike assigning copyright to a for-profit company. The terms that you sign and agree to with the FSF are very reasonable and they protect the developer from having the license changed should the FSF be taken over by people that would want to abuse your contributions.

This does not comport with my understanding of how copyright works. Once you transfer your copyright to someone, the creative work is entirely theirs. So what standing would you have to object to what they do with it? It belongs to them now, not you.

It doesn't matter what an agreement says if you don't have standing in court to enforce it.

Note that in jurisdictions like Germany, it's impossible to sign away our version of copyright ('Urheberrecht', creator's rights): At most, you can grant exclusive usage rights.

I don’t think the FSF ever violated the condition, so there’s nothing you can do to test whether a court would follow that interpretation.

You don't get the copyright. That's still held by the software company. That's how they can force you to adhere to their conditions--they own the software and they can take away your license.

But if they gave you the copyright, they couldn't take it away anymore, so you would have no reason to follow their conditions any more.

That sentence is blatantly false. A contract and a license are different concepts and bound by different laws. That was my point.

In addition, they weren't confused. It looks like you were:

> They set conditions (we will keep it free) just like any software contract where you only get the software if you promise to adhere to some rules.

"keep it free" refers to freedom (as in they will only ever use free software licenses). In fact the FSF also states they will only ever use licenses that are in the same spirit as the GPLvX. It is a contract, because you are assigning your copyright to them -- you have to have an agreement in place in order to do that. Software licensing is a different thing. The FSF actually requires you to give them your copyrights if you want to contribute some code to a project they manage. Many other projects do not do this, so the structure for things like Linux (and some GNU projects) is different and is based on licensing.

Copyright assignment is more like a sales contract (at least in the U.S.). It doesn't have a term, but rather is complete once executed. Once it's executed, the new property owner can do what they want with the property. This makes it hard for the seller to compel the buyer to comply with conditions once the sale is done. Like selling a car to someone and saying "if you buy this car you can't drive it to to Texas." Once it's titled in their name, they can drive it wherever they want.

Free software licenses (and some proprietary software licenses) are not contracts in any meaningful way. They do not require any of the tests of contract law (meeting of minds, bystander, willingness to be bound, etc) and are implicit agreements (to be fair, contracts can also be implicit but that's not what people are talking about when they say "contracts"). The reason you have to obey the GPL is because the only way you can do anything with the software is by obeying the terms of the license (assuming it's not dual-licensed). That doesn't smell or sound like a contract to me.

> Copyright assignment is more like a sales contract

Except free software copyright assignment gives you non-exclusive rights to licensing anyway (so you only lose the power to sue people, which is not something that software developers do regularly). In addition if you sign a contract to buy a car under the condition that you will drive it to Texas and you don't drive it to Texas, then the contract is voided. Same with houses, or anything else you could possibly sell.

E.g. the GPL v2 to v3 transition was enabled by that, with the introduction of patent/"TiVo" clauses. No reason they couldn't make more drastic changes in the future.

Really, FSF copyright is a very good thing, and you can even do it completely digitally in the US and Germany (used to be that you had to use snail mail to receive forms and send them back). People shouldn't get scared away from contributing to GNU projects that choose copyright assignment. There's no better place to protect the GPL than at the FSF.

Also Copyright is a pretty US thing. Law differs and many Countries don't actually allow it. Also since you brought up Getmany already: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_Germany#Trans... Germany is such a country and even if you were to assign copyright to them it would be legally void to the best of my knowledge. And also other countries that base it on moral rights.

Copyright law is very different between countries and way too strong to just transfer for such a use. If they really wanted to, they should have made a license to handle it exactly the way they wanted.

Some other people argue it's not necessary, and while that might be true, it's better to be safe than sorry. Not to mention that all GNU projects are GPLv3-or-later anyway (so any contribution would be able to be upgraded anyway since it's licensed in such a way that you can use it under GPLv4). If you refuse and license your change under GPLv3, it won't get merged.

5. FSF agrees that any program "based on the Works" offered to the public by FSF or its agents or assignees shall be offered in the form of machine-readable source code, in addition to any other forms of FSF's choosing. However, FSF is free to choose at its convenience the media of distribution for machine-readable source code and may charge a fee of its choosing for copies.